| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The movement from the international passenger survey with the labour force survey will not, regrettably, make things better. It is suggested that the labour force survey got nearer to the estimate than the IPS in 2001, but if we go back to 1991, it was the other way round. So there is no guarantee that it is better. In fact, the labour force survey sample is even smaller than the sample used for the IPS. That is crucial, especially as we are to move to three-year local government finance settlements, starting in 2008. It is therefore all the more important that we
get this right to start with, because the problem will be much more difficult to unpick if we are locked into a three-year settlement on the basis of inaccurate and unreliable figures.
The fault here is that the two methods fail to pick up short-term migrants, to whom I have already referred, or people who live in London for part of the week but are counted as resident elsewhere. Many people live in London for part of the week for their work, not a few of whom are connected to this honourable House, but their family home is regarded as elsewhere, so that is where they live for the purposes of the official population statistics. However, while they are here they use London refuse services, leisure services, street cleansing services, and so on. That is not recognised.
The figures do not take into account either the very real and well documented effect of population churn in large cities such as London. In the City of Westminster and some other central London boroughs, population churn of about a third—up to 34 per cent.—is well documented. That in turn creates particular costs, because it involves one set of short-term migrants being replaced by another. They are not picked up by the official statistics, but they are nevertheless using local services. The ONS has said that it will publish estimates of short-term migration later in the year, but that will be too late for the start of the three-year financial settlement in April 2008. Much more urgent action is needed, which is why I have raised the issue in the debate tonight.
I have set out in some detail what is wrong. London Councils does not want the Government to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say that it is all down to the quango—the ONS. The Government have responsibility. What we need to do is accept that current estimates are not working and are not fit for purpose, and accept that there is a lack of clarity and transparency. It is reasonable to ensure that we develop a methodology that is robust, up to date and fit for purpose. There must be proper consultation with local authorities before it is changed—that has not happened so far—and minimum standards of accuracy should be set out on a basis that can be agreed between the Treasury, the ONS and local authorities. Perhaps the incoming chair of the Statistics Board could, with a little push from Ministers, take that into account.
If only the Government and the ONS would listen to councils in London, accept what is happening and come up with a solution to restore both fairness and public confidence. That is the reason for this debate at this late hour—late in terms of the time and of the opportunity. We must get things right before the funding settlement cuts in. We contend that the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility on this issue. Ultimately, ONS has to be accountable. So far, regrettably, it has put its head in the sand in the face of compelling evidence. What is needed is for the House and the Government to put pressure on it to accept reality and change things in available ways while there is still time to do so.
11.12 pm
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Angela Eagle):
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this evening’s debate. I thank him for raising the important issue of
the compilation of statistics on London’s population. The hon. Gentleman explained that this is such an important issue because ONS population statistics are used to determine local government funding. Equally, they are used to inform local planning in respect of services for the future.
It is precisely because of the importance of these statistics that ONS takes a great deal of care in making them as accurate as possible. ONS is currently involved in ongoing work to improve statistics. I will come on shortly to describe how those statistics are put together, and explain why some of the suggestions about flaws in the methodology are inaccurate.
I would like to start, though, by talking briefly about how these statistics are used, because the impression is sometimes created that local government funding depends entirely upon population statistics. I will not describe in detail the funding formula used for local government—we are all familiar with it, especially with how it impacts on our own areas—not least because it is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government rather than the Treasury. However, I will say that it takes account of other factors, such as local authorities’ ability to raise revenue from council tax, alongside the population statistics, which are clearly important in themselves.
There is also a process known as damping, which is used to ensure that all local authorities receive a minimum increase in grant, known as the floor. That floor means that even if population statistics were to show the population decreasing in an area, the local authority’s funding would still increase by a reasonable amount.
Nevertheless, population statistics are clearly important, and they should be as accurate as possible. As well as being used for local government funding, they are used to develop and monitor economic and fiscal policy and to understand social change, as well as any policy implications that stem from it. These statistics are calculated as accurately as possible, using a clear and carefully designed methodology.
One of the challenges for that methodology—it is only part of the task—is to factor in the impact of international migration on population levels. The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter in the House this evening. Migration is largely calculated on the basis of the international passenger survey. We have heard a number of things about the lack of accuracy in the IPS, but I should like to draw attention to areas where it is reasonably robust.
First, it has been claimed that IPS is restricted to the major airports and that it does not include Victoria coach station, for example, where 20,000 people can arrive. Actually, it sampled 16 airports, 11 seaports and the channel tunnel. Clearly, it does not sample Victoria coach station, but that is simply because coaches from other countries cannot get there without passing through a port or the channel tunnel. The IPS picks up the inhabitants of the coach on its way through to Victoria coach station.
Secondly, it is not the case that the international passenger survey’s sampling is carried out only during the working day, as critics have said. There is flexibility in when the sampling can take place, especially to include particular flights from particular countries that may arrive early at an airport.
Robert Neill: Will the Minister accept, however, that she is missing an important point? It is important to have accuracy of statistics not just on who is coming into the country through the entry points, but in terms of calculating, for example, local need and grants when people are here. The IPS does nothing to assist in that, for the reasons that I set out.
Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is why the labour force survey offers extra insight, although I would be the first to say that it is not an actual count of all migrants wherever they are. Even if we could do that and afford to do it regularly, it would still provide only a snapshot of the situation, which, as he said, can be fluid.
The IPS is more comprehensive than is often suggested, but the ONS is committed to ensuring that population statistics are as accurate as possible. It has been working this year on improving its methodology. Plans to do that were published in April. The ONS has held meetings with a number of users, including some London local authorities, to discuss planned changes. Those meetings have led to refinements to the proposals, which were outlined in material published yesterday. There have been workshops and feedback has been given. I expect the dialogue to continue as changes to the methodology to produce more accurate figures are put into effect.
The improvements that the ONS is making to its methodology make the information more accurate and improve quality. In particular, migration estimates will now draw on the labour force survey in addition to the IPS, which will help to reflect what migrants do after they have entered the country and where they settle. There is some evidence that the IPS may be particularly inaccurate for well-known places such as Westminster, Oxford or Manchester because people often fill in a place that they have heard of when asked about their destination, and that is not always where they end up living.
Again, concerns have been raised about aspects of the labour force survey, including the suggestion that it does not take account of people in multi-occupied dwellings. Although it does not take account of people in communal establishments, such as halls of residence, it does cover all types of private households, including those that are in multi-occupied dwellings. While response rates to the survey for multi-occupied dwellings are lower than those for single household dwellings, the weighting of the sample to take account of age, gender and region goes some way to correcting that. There have been improvements and a process of ongoing dialogue with local authorities, including London local authorities. I expect there to be an ongoing liaison.
The improvements in the methodology improve in particular the regional and local distribution of international migrants in the statistics that the ONS produces. Combined sources of such statistics have strengths that increase the robustness and the likely accuracy of the results, rather than taking the results from a single survey. The improved methodology will now be applied to revise population statistics for 2002 to 2005 and to produce 2006 mid-year population estimates, all of which will be released in August.
The improvements will not change the trends demonstrated by the existing methodology’s estimates. In particular, figures based on the improved methodology will not show either population or migration levels decreasing. Across England and Wales, the original method showed an increase in population due to long-term international migration. The improved methodology increases that slightly, by 28,000. For London, the existing method implied an increase of 396,000 between 2002 and 2005 as a result of long-term international migration. The revised method reduces that increase to 336,000, but that is not the same as saying that migration is decreasing, and it is certainly not saying that the population is decreasing. Instead, the revised figures show that migration to London remains on an upward trend, but at a lower level than the estimates suggested.
I should re-emphasise that the changes are being made to improve the methodology and accuracy. As well as making the statistics more accurate this year, the ONS has planned further improvements for subsequent years. In particular, an interdepartmental taskforce on international migration statistics was set up in 2006 and has made a number of strategic recommendations for further improvements in the years to 2012. The ONS is already taking forward some of those recommendations, and will publish a full response later in the summer.
The ONS also published a revisions policy earlier this month, setting out the principles for further revisions to population statistics, and it has been working with local authorities and Government Departments to identify how new and existing information sources—such as GP and school registrations—can be used to inform migration estimates and address local issues in population estimation. That goes to the heart of what Members have been talking about.
However, that is not as easy as it might seem. The statistics published yesterday on national insurance numbers issued to overseas nationals caught the media’s attention and have been mentioned in our debate, but basing population estimates on national insurance numbers could be misleading, as some people apply for them but do not use them, while others need them only for a short period. In other words, national insurance numbers provide an inflow figure, which is not necessarily a net figure, and many of those who applied for national insurance numbers might have already left the country. National insurance numbers do not show the flow out; they only show the flow in.
That brings me on to my final point, on those who come to the UK only for a short period. The ONS population statistics that I have talked about rely upon the UN definition of a long-term migrant—someone changing their country of usual residence for at least a year. We believe that that is the most appropriate and reasonable definition to use and the most realistic way of accurately determining the population levels in different areas. We recognise that short-term migration is also important, as is churn, but such trends are difficult to pick up on accurately and in a timely fashion without spending one’s whole life getting snapshots of an ever-changing situation. That is why I am particularly interested in discovering how we can use other indicators and statistics to get a closer handle at a more disaggregated level on what is happening.
We believe that the annual definition is the most appropriate one to use, but the ONS has been working hard on producing innovative estimates, and will publish national figures later in the year. However, this is a new and difficult area and we cannot expect accuracy immediately as we feel our way towards a solution.
Mr. Pelling: The Minister suggested that there might be other indicators. I mentioned GP registrations as an example. What other possible indicators might be useful?
Angela Eagle:
There are several such indicators. The hon. Gentleman mentioned GP registrations. There are also school registrations, but that does not address the short-term or long-term issue. Each attempt to measure accurately at a disaggregated level must be looked at carefully for what it actually tells us. The national insurance numbers demonstrate only flows in; they do not give us a picture of the net situation, nor
do they tell us about flows out. They can be more misleading than useful, even though they have been prayed in aid tonight as indicators.
Each attempt to take a look at what is happening in local communities must be analysed to establish its accuracy and its shortcomings as well as the information it provides. The plea I make is that that is what we all have to do as we try to feel our way to a more accurate method of measuring at community level precisely what is going on in a dynamic and open economy.
This has been an important debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for raising it. I look forward to there being ongoing dialogue as the ONS attempts to improve its methodology so that we can have more accurate and better policy.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o’clock.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 52.
AYES
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Brown, rh Mr. Gordon
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Yvette
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr. Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Field, Mr. Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gilroy, Linda
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goggins, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Havard, Mr. Dai
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr. Jim
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morgan, Julie
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, rh James
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, John
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Spink, Bob
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watts, Mr. Dave
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, rh Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
NOES
Baker, Norman
Barrett, John
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brooke, Annette
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Davey, Mr. Edward
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Foster, Mr. Don
George, Andrew
Gidley, Sandra
Harris, Dr. Evan
Heath, Mr. David
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, David
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Hunter, Mark
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Lamb, Norman
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
Mercer, Patrick
Moore, Mr. Michael
Mulholland, Greg
Öpik, Lembit
Price, Adam
Pugh, Dr. John
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Robertson, Angus
Rogerson, Dan
Rowen, Paul
Russell, Bob
Salmond, rh Mr. Alex
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Smith, Sir Robert
Swinson, Jo
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr. Mike
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |