Cabinet Office written question – answered at on 15 October 2012.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the net change was in the number of private sector jobs in (a) the Tees Valley, (b) the North East, (c) Middlesbrough, (d) Redcar constituency, (e) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, (f) Stockton North constituency, (g) Stockton South constituency, (h) Hartlepool constituency and (i) Darlington constituency from May 2010 to the latest date for which figures are available in 2012.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated September 2012
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what the net change in private sector jobs was in (a) the Tees Valley, (b) the North East, (c) Middlesbrough, (d) Redcar constituency, (e) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, (f) Stockton North constituency, (g) Stockton South constituency, (h) Hartlepool constituency and (i) Darlington constituency from May 2010 to the latest period for which figures are available. (121214)
Estimates of private sector jobs are not available. As an alternative in table 1, we have provided net change in private sector employment in the North East from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and returns from public sector organisations between June 2010 and June 2012 the latest available period.
As data from the LFS and returns from public sector organisations is only available at regional level, in Table 2, we have provided the net changes in private sector employment from the Annual Population Survey (APS) in (a) the Tees Valley, (b) the North East, (c) Middlesbrough, (d) Redcar constituency, (e) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency, (f) Stockton North constituency, (g) Stockton South constituency, (h) Hartlepool constituency and (i) Darlington constituency between the 12 month periods ending in December 2010 and March 2012 the latest available period.
Estimates for May 2010 are not available as public sector returns are collected quarterly (March, June, Sept, Dec).
Individuals in the APS are classified to the public or private sector according to their responses to the survey.
As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS and the APS are subject to a margin of uncertainty. A guide to the quality of the APS estimates is given in table 2.
National and local area estimates for many labour market statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant count are available on the NOMIS website at:
Table 1: Net change in private sector employment between June 2010 and June 2012 | |||
Thousand | |||
June 2010 | June 2012 | Net change | |
North East | 841 | 877 | 36 |
Note: Estimated as the difference between LFS total employment and the data from public sector organisations. Source: Labour Force Survey and returns from public sector organisations. |
Table 2: Net change in private sector employment between December 2010 and March 2012 | |||
Thousand | |||
12 months ending: | |||
December 2010 | March 2012 | Net change | |
North East | 793 | *796 | 3 |
Tees Valley | 198 | **195 | -3 |
Middlesbrough | 39 | **37 | -2 |
Redcar | 24 | **23 | -1 |
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland | 27 | **29 | 2 |
Stockton North | 29 | **26 | -3 |
Stockton South | 34 | **34 | 0 |
Hartlepool | 26 | **25 | -1 |
Darlington | 27 | **29 | 2 |
Note: Coefficients of Variation have been calculated tor the latest period as an indication of the quality of the estimates. See Guide to Quality below. Guide to Quality: The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an estimate of 200 with a CV of 5% we would expect the population total to be within the range 180-220. Key: * 0 ≤ CV<5%—Statistical Robustness: Estimates are considered precise ** 5 ≤ CV <10%—Statistical Robustness: Estimates are considered reasonably precise *** 10 ≤ CV <20%—Statistical Robustness: Estimates are considered acceptable **** CV ≥ 20%—Statistical Robustness: Estimates are considered too unreliable for practical purposes CV = Coefficient of Variation Source: Annual Population Survey. |
Yes0 people think so
No0 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.