Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
187-199)
RT HON.
TESSA JOWELL
MP, SHAUN FLANAGAN
AND CHRIS
HAYES
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q187 Chairman: Tessa, Mr.
Flanagan and Mr. Hayes, thank you very much for being here. As
you know, we have two sessions. In the first, we shall just look
at the Census, then we will have a second session on the broader
questions on the Government Office for London. I shall start by
asking you to introduce yourselves to the Committee. I ask everyone
to make a short introductory statement, as we would welcome a
few words by way of introduction.
Tessa Jowell: Chris
Hayes is director of the Government Office for London and Shaun
Flanagan is with the Cabinet Office. You have asked us to come
and give evidence on two issues. The first is the forthcoming
Census. You want confidence about the way in which the methodology
for the Census will be addressed to mitigate the problems, particularly
the lack of confidence in the 2001 Census, and we're very happy
to answer your detailed questions about that, recognising that
there are a number of reasons why it is so important, not least
the primacy of the Census in determining, while taking account
of other factors, the resource allocation by Government to London
boroughs. Ensuring that those decisions are made on the best possible
population evidence is absolutely crucial. You may also want to
look forward at the way in which the mid-year population estimates
will be applied, and we're very happy to address questions such
as that. As I've begun to understand a bit more about this, I've
found that the services for the people whom all of us represent
are calculated on a number of different bases, not all of which
are population based. If we have limited confidence in the Census,
that's a good thing, on the basis that there are many reasons
why we need to count all the people who are in London on a given
day in 2011. There may be an argument for looking again at the
basis of calculation, but that is obviously not for now. It is
for another time and clearly there are departmental responsibilities
in relation to that. The second area of inquiry is the role of
the Government Office for London, which you are absolutely right
to say needs to be kept under constant review.[1]
In terms of function, it is more focused since the establishment
of London government. Its headcount is falling. Its budget is
falling. It is important to keep under pretty constant review
the relevance of GOL priorities that either cannot be exercised
at borough level or cannot be discharged by the Greater London
Authority (GLA) and the Mayor. There certainly are some pretty
compelling examples of areas where GOL's strategic reach has delivered
good rewards for Londoners, but as I said, we need a process of
constant review and reassessment.
Q188 Chairman: Thank you very
much. I shall start with some questions about the Census. Evidence
has been given to us by the boroughs, London Councils and the
GLA, putting forward their views on what went wrong in 2001, and
while completely agreeing that there are multiple measures of
assessing population and the Census is not the sole tool on which
we must rely, I think they are very clear about its importance
and how badly it went wrong, particularly in London and, to a
certain extent, Manchester and other urban environments in 2001.
The councils' view is that London lost very substantially as a
consequence of what went wrong in 2001. What is your official
view? What is your estimate of the loss, if any, that applied
to London as a result of what went wrong?
Tessa Jowell: I can't give you
an answer to that question, Karen, that satisfies me. I've tried
to get to a figure that demonstrates the loss to London of faulty
census methodology. You will know that three boroughs benefited
from population revision: Southwark, Lambeth—sorry, I wish
that were so; I meant to say Wandsworth—and Westminster,
and obviously some compensation through grant came with that.
I am very happy for Chris and Shaun to explain to you departmentally
why this is a very difficult figure. You know that a figure has
been put out by London Councils but, as it made very clear, it
was a gross figure rather than a net figure post-damping. Certainly,
as I've been trying to get to an estimate of the cost to Londoners,
there are figures that the Department for Communities and Local
Government, as the parent authority, will disavow. Chris, perhaps
you'd like to explain the methodological problems, but I don't
think we should rest until we have a figure on this. I am not
yet in a position to give you one. I would like to be in a position
to do so, and would be happy to offer subsequent evidence to you
by way of memorandum.
Chairman: That would be very helpful.
Tessa Jowell: It is important
that you understand, in fairness, what the methodological problems
are judged to be with this.
Q189 Chairman: I think that's
absolutely right, but equally it is right—I suspect that
you would agree—that if the London authorities are able
to go out there on the basis of a calculation and say that there
is a loss of £130 million, which may or may not be true unless
it is effectively refuted, that is a very powerful story indeed,
so it is absolutely essential that a well-based agreement with
that figure or refutation is put into the public domain as soon
as possible
Chris Hayes: The key point to
make is that the Census information is at the core of calculating
funding to local authorities. That's changed to make it more current
by mid-year population estimates, which make adjustments to account
for movements in the population, including migration. That figure
is then subject to a number of stages in developing the eventual
area grant funding for local authorities in terms of the needs
assessment, which looks at the roles that local authorities undertake,
the structure of the population and demographics. That is the
first calculation that is done. Then there are formulae depending
on particular services that local authorities offer, and different
formulae for adult services, children's services, police and fire,
and so on. When that figure is done, the resource assessment is
done in terms of the local authority's ability to raise money
locally based on the type of housing it has. That's the second
calculation that is done. When that is done nationally, if there
is still money left in the overall grant settlement, that is divided
per capita among local authorities. Once that is done,
the floor damping applies, which depends on which of four blocks
local authorities are linked into, according to their services.
So the point is that tracking a 2001 Census figure through all
those different mechanisms and calculations is very difficult,
and to provide, as London Councils has done, a fairly simplistic
calculation, which it admits is outwith all the different calculations,
is quite misleading in terms of a total figure of potential loss
for London.
Q190 Chairman: So they will
just be allowed to make the running.
Chris Hayes: As the Minister said,
she is unhappy that she has not been able to establish a figure.
It would be difficult to establish a correct figure without running
all those formulae nationally again, because of the way that is
constructed. We have not done that.
Tessa Jowell: I intend to raise
this with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Given that we are a year away from the 2011 Census, this has to
be part of the stick that produces a better and more reliable
result for London than the 2001 Census did.
Shaun Flanagan: I work in the
Cabinet Office, working on statistical reform. One of my duties
is to work on the Census and provide support to the Minister in
taking the legislation through Parliament. One thing I would add
is that the ONS, following the under-count in the 2001 Census,
took proactive action. It reviewed all 376 authorities, prompted
by some boroughs, which led to changes to the population estimates.
There has been an element of change to those population estimates
to try to reflect the degree by which the Census was under-counted.
They have tried to address it, though there may still be concerns
about whether it has been addressed satisfactorily.
Q191 Chairman: Why is it possible
now to indicate that there will be a calculation or some progress
towards a calculation to match or refute the London Councils figure,
when that has been impossible to date?
Tessa Jowell: No, I don't think
that it is impossible to do it. I think it is a lot of work to
do it. We need to request that that work is done in preparation
for the 2011 Census. To finish on that, you will also be aware
of Tony Travers's rather sanguine evidence about this. Essentially,
he says that there is a fixed sum for distribution. How it is
distributed between boroughs means that if one borough is going
to get more because it has more population, there will be less
overall, or other boroughs will get less. It is therefore a zero-sum
game. To some extent that is true. We need to look, not at the
loss to individual boroughs but to London as a whole.
Chairman: Absolutely. It does not necessarily
have to be dealt with as an issue.
Tessa Jowell: This is not a horse
trade between boroughs. This is knowing what London has as an
entity of government now and what London may have lost in 2001,
in order that we have a benchmark and can take the necessary steps
in the run-up to the 2011 Census to prevent that.
Q192 Chairman: Indeed, that
is absolutely right. The evidence that we have received from the
boroughs has very much been, in conclusion, about whether they
have confidence that what has been put in place for 2011 will
prevent a rerun of some of the disasters of 2001. They were unanimous
in saying they do not have that confidence. At the moment, the
practical preparation for the Census is not so robust that large
numbers of hard-to-count populations in our most mobile and hard-to-count
corners of the city will not be counted all over again. What is
your response to that?
Tessa Jowell: Having looked at
this, I am impressed by the very significant improvement in the
methodology and the genuine application to 2011 of lessons learned
from the undercounting of 2001. Shaun, you might like to enumerate
the measures that are going to be taken, which very specifically
address the characteristics of the constituencies that we all
represent: highly transient populations, great difficulty in making
contact with people, large numbers of migrants and, at times,
people who do not want to be recorded as being there.
Shaun Flanagan: The improvements
that ONS are going to be taking are well rehearsed. ONS are trying
to develop a national programme that works locally, which is an
extreme challenge, particularly in London. But on the steps that
they've taken, bearing in mind that nine tenths of the country's
population resides out of the capital, it's important that they
get it right everywhere, not just in London. The things that they're
putting in place to ensure that it works this time, for example,
include, as you've heard, producing an accurate national address
register with 99% accuracy, so that forms can be delivered. The
key thing that ONS needs to continue to do is to work closely
with local authorities, particularly London boroughs, to understand
the local area and to really get a buy-in into promoting, engaging
and ensuring that the population within a borough—
Q193 Chairman: But isn't the
point that the boroughs are saying now, "We've only a relatively
few months to go before everything goes live," but that isn't
happening at a level that gives them confidence that there will
be a high-quality census delivered?
Tessa Jowell: What specifically
are they saying is not happening?
Q194 Chairman: Certainly,
there'll be some questions about the preparation in terms of the
community engagement, but they are concerned about the extent
to which there is preparation that ensures that the message is
going out to the population about engaging community groups more
locally and starting to reach into that breathtaking diversity
of groups that we know we have, so that you're recruiting the
right kind of enumerators, and about learning the lessons about
the communities that might not wish to engage with the Census
particularly. There are huge numbers of anomalies in the address
lists at a relatively late stage. We all agree that the address
list process is a considerable improvement on what we've had before.
They are expressing a number of concerns.
Shaun Flanagan: On the anomalies,
I think you're right: there are definitely some. I think Glen
Watson, in his evidence, said that there were 3 million households
in London and 50,000 anomalies on one register and about 30,000
or 40,000 on the other. So 100,000 out of 3 million is an anomaly
that needs to be sorted, but I think it's sortable. Another key
job for the local authorities is to engage with that process and
help get the address register right. I think the process for the
Census is that you don't want—I would say—engagement
too early. If you engage the public too early on this, they need
to make sure that they take part in the Census on 27 March 2011.
We're currently in the process of the Census regulations being
about to be laid and go through Parliament, which will enable
ONS to begin the field operations for the Census. That will allow
them to recruit the 35,000 people that they need to undertake
this major project and they will be include the Census area managers,
one of the key roles of which is going to be liaising with the
local authorities and the London boroughs and those communities
that really need to be brought in, so that they can go and encourage
the people in the local area to take part.
Q195 Chairman: So you're confident
that the time scale is adequate still for all that process to
be begun. It may be that we would not expect individual members
of the public at this stage to be learning much about the Census,
but would it not be the case that, in that intermediate level,
there should be a greater awareness and the beginnings of the
preparation for a strategy?
Shaun Flanagan: To turn this round
slightly, the local authorities and London boroughs also need
to engage with this. They're the ones, it seems to me, that have
the local knowledge and understanding, and they need to be making
sure that that's being provided to the ONS, so that they're hearing
the message that they need to hear.
Tessa Jowell: I think that there
is a case for periodic survey of samples of local authorities
about levels of awareness and the relevance of about 10 steps
that are highly specific and appropriate for inner London and
about their assessment of how far those provisions are in place.
Q196 Chairman: Concern was
also expressed about the fact that the ONS wasn't sharing the
methodology and that there wasn't a dialogue at least on methodology
for Census estimates with the boroughs. That was causing concern.
Is that something you can address?
Shaun Flanagan: The ONS has published
the White Paper setting out the proposals for the Census, and
I believe the timetable has detailed information on what it will
do and when, so I am not quite sure what information was being
alluded to.
Chairman: Certainly, the boroughs were
of the view that it was something of a one-way process and that
they weren't getting an opportunity to engage with that and make
their own contribution to it. Perhaps that is something you could
take away.
Q197 Jeremy Corbyn: It is
quite clear, from what you have just said and from the other evidence
we have taken, that the last Census was inaccurate and that the
implications are serious, as it doesn't recognise real population,
as the Minister explained, but it also discriminates between boroughs,
so a borough that is static, with a stable population, is more
likely to get the full allocation of funds than transient, inner-city
boroughs such as Southwark, Camden, Islington or Hackney. How
reliable will Government policies be over the decade after the
Census in monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of that
Census and the population movements that will inevitably take
place during that 10-year period?
Shaun Flanagan: It is absolutely
crucial that we get the Census right in 2011. That is fundamental
going forward, because it provides the benchmark. ONS has also
embarked on a major improvement to its population and migration
statistics, particularly because of the issues around migration
that were identified by the Treasury Select Committee. That involves
using administrative data sources to better improve the population
estimates. In 2008, the Government introduced legislation that
allowed for data sharing of personal data, so that they can go
from Government Departments to the ONS for the purposes of improving
population estimates. Previously, those data weren't allowed to
be shared due to legal or other barriers. Two orders have gone
through Parliament, and the ONS now has data that will help it
on that journey, and a lot more is in the pipeline to try to make
more use of the administrative data out there to better improve
the estimate of the population and what is really going on on
the ground. Going forward, ONS is looking to do what it can to
improve that.
Q198 Jeremy Corbyn: What about
tracking it through the decade? My experience is that the population
in inner London can increase enormously in only a year through
short-term migration. It might decrease later, but it changes
a lot. If there is no effective tracking of that, Government spending
plans are essentially blind to what is happening on the ground,
and that has big implications. A static outer-London borough will
know roughly what it is getting, but an inner-London borough with
a huge transient population simply won't. High-demand populations,
therefore, get less.
Tessa Jowell: If I understand
your question, Jeremy, I think that the mid-year population statistics
are intended to take account of that, and that process is designed
precisely to address the problem you described. That is an annual
process, including the year of the Census itself. It is the mid-year
population statistic that informs the local authority allocation,
rather than the Census itself, which provides the baseline.
Q199 Jeremy Corbyn: A bit
earlier you said that there was a danger of getting involved in
a zero-sum game—
Tessa Jowell: No, I didn't say
that.
Jeremy Corbyn: You said that Tony Travers
said that.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, I said that
Tony Travers said that. I would argue for a distribution in London.
As a representative, I would argue for a distribution formula
that takes greater account of need.
1 The transcript of oral evidence relating to the work
of the Government Office for London is published as HC 409-i. Back
|
