Parliamentary Written Question (Correction) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Norman Baker Excerpts
Tuesday 11th January 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Written Statements
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Norman Baker Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
- Hansard - -

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 31081 on 16 December, Official Report, columns 866-67W, about the numbers of persons who habitually travel to a place of work. The table, with corrected figures for 2005, is detailed below:

Numbers of people by mode of travel and location of workplace

Thousands

October to December

Area

Mode of travel

20051

2006

2007

2008

2009

England

Train2

1,017

970

1,072

1,084

1,040

Car3

15,649

14,605

14,518

14,281

13,998

Bus/Coach4

1,656

1,562

1,526

1,477

1,331

East Midlands

Train2

13

11

12

13

13

Car3

1,393

1,317

1,321

1,341

1,279

Bus/Coach4

90

99

120

97

97

Note:

1 Following realignment from seasonal to calendar quarters, data for December are assumed to follow the same pattern as that of October and November.

2 Includes railway trains but excludes underground train and light railway or tram.

3 Includes car, van, minibus and works van.

4 Includes bus, coach and private bus.

Source: ONS Labour Force Survey (LFS)



An investigation has shown that the error was due to a change in the Labour Force Survey methodology introduced by ONS in early 2006. Specifically, the survey changed from providing data for non-standard “seasonal” quarters (i.e. “Autumn” = September to November, “Winter” = December to February, etc.) to using more standard calendar quarters from this point. As a result of this change, the Department’s estimates for the period October to December in 2005 are actually based on only two months of data (October to November) instead of three months in all later years. The 2005 estimates given in the answer should therefore have been adjusted upwards by a factor of 1.5 to take account of this difference. However, this adjustment was not applied and the error was not spotted before the draft answer was submitted.