Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
200-212)
RT HON.
TESSA JOWELL
MP, SHAUN FLANAGAN
AND CHRIS
HAYES
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q200 Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely.
I think we would all agree on that. But if it emerges that London's
population is much higher than it is believed and it increases
in mid-year terms, do we redistribute the existing global sum
for London within London, or are we then in a position as a Londoners
to go to the Treasury and say, "Hang on, London's population
is half a million bigger than you think, so London as a whole
requires this increased national expenditure."? Is there
a hermetic seal around London in this respect?
Tessa Jowell: The revisions in
the mid-year population figures inform the level of grant allocation.
To that extent, there is an annual review based on the four elements
of the basis for calculating grant. The bigger question that you
put about whether London is adequately funded is a question for
the horse trading of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) that
will follow the general election.
Q201 Clive Efford: We've had
evidence from the boroughs that mid-year estimates do not accurately
count the number of people in their areas based on other sources
of data. What feedback have you had from local authorities about
the accuracy of the mid-year estimates on which you are basing
the allocation of resources?
Tessa Jowell: Those are not my
decisions, as you will know. They are decisions for DCLG.
Clive Efford: That is a royal you as
a Government.
Tessa Jowell: Okay. Barry Quirk
is working with ONS to make sure that there is systematic improvement
in this methodology. Chris, would you like to say a couple of
words about the feedback from local authorities?
Chris Hayes: Clearly, you have
evidence from some local authorities, and we have covered this
point earlier, in terms of their concern to get the next Census
right. I am not aware of any specific issues that they have with
recent mid-year population estimates that have updated that, apart
from concerns about the extent to which factors such as migration
are taken into account, for which there is now a cross-Government
initiative to ensure that those transient populations, if you
will, are taken into account, including access to a wide range
of other administrative data and departmental databases.
Q202 Clive Efford: Have they
suggested that the use of some of those databases might provide
more accurate figures? For instance, Newham and Hackney have indicated
that, while their populations are going down, applications for
national insurance numbers, school populations, GP registrations
are moving in the opposite direction.
Shaun Flanagan: One of the difficulties
is that, as the Minister alluded to, there are many different
ways of measuring population. ONS has to try to produce measures
of population that that are consistent across the whole of the
country. A lot of the data sets that are available to London boroughs
are unique to their area. One of the important things about statistics
is that they need to be consistently comparable. One of the things
that ONS is doing this time, which is a big step from the 2001
Census, is that at the point of imputation before the Census results
are going to be released, it will engage with the London boroughs
to see how those population estimates relate to how it believes
they are on the ground. I believe that it has even said that it
will be prepared to make adjustments before the final Census results
are published. That is a major shift in its approach compared
with last time. Going forward, the improvement programme that
Chris referred to—the population statistics migration improvement
programme—is specifically to address the issues of migration,
which are a big challenge to London boroughs. Just on GP registrations,
for example, one of the problems with those databases is that
people register with a GP when they move to an area or not as
the case may be. It might be a number of months, even years, before
they decide to go and register, because often people might not
go to see a doctor until they are ill. So there are associated
problems with databases held by London boroughs as well. I think
it is a question of understanding those.
Tessa Jowell: The other point
by way of answer to Clive's question is that the detrimental impact
of undercounting of borough population is mitigated by the grant
distribution formula—the floor damping—which sets
the range and means that no authority gets less than the previous
year on a like-for-like basis.
Q203 Clive Efford: One last
question: do the Departments that fund London boroughs recognise
that there are any shortcomings in figures and report any concerns
about local authorities perhaps missing out on funding as a result
of inaccurate figures?
Tessa Jowell: As Minister for
London, I have not had representations to that effect, but I think
this is something that has to be driven both by the advocacy of
local authorities and by the vigilance of the Government. The
Census is an independent exercise conducted by ONS, but it is
our job as Ministers and as elected representatives, with our
local authorities, continually to test and interrogate this. Having
looked at them closely, I think that the measures being put in
place by ONS to improve the methodology for collecting information
are going to have a material impact. From all the things that
we do to identify people and find out where they are, we know
that the kinds of things that ONS is proposing are the kinds of
things that mean you find more people. So I think we can be confident
that the considerably enhanced effort to be proactive and to recognise
the particular nature of inner London communities is something
that will lead to greater accuracy. But, that having been achieved,
I don't think it means that we can simply take the Census in 2011
as a snapshot that we can assume provides a sound basis of assumption
for the next 10 years.
Q204 Chairman: Thank you very
much. Glen Watson, the Census Director, said to us last week that
he was pleased with the settlement he had had for the conduct
of the Census, but he also expressed a note of caution that this
may not be entirely guaranteed given the financial pressures—there
may be some pressure on the budget. Do you feel that the Census,
for London purposes, is adequately funded? Are there any discussions
taking place, which you are aware of, that are looking at the
public expenditure case for the Census?
Tessa Jowell: The answer to the
second question is no. My assumption is that the figure for the
conduct of the Census is settled and that ONS is now proceeding
to plan on that basis, because it has to have certainty—particularly
in light of the additional work being commissioned, as there will
be some additional costs attached to that. But, Shaun, I don't
think we have any evidence that the figures are likely to be revised,
do we?
Shaun Flanagan: No. When the UK
Statistics Authority was established, it received a five-year
funding settlement from Parliament of about £1.2 billion,
which included the cost of running the Census.
Q205 Chairman: What about
developing the business case for the Census outputs, because I
don't think that there is a funded stream for that at the moment,
is there? Is that an ongoing discussion?
Shaun Flanagan: Yes, the actual
publication of the Census results won't take place until about
September 2012, which I believe is when the first results will
be coming out, so that will be straying into the next CSR period.
So I believe that ONS, like every other Department, will have
to put a business case in and bid for the money, and then it will
be up to it how it uses the money it gets from Parliament. One
would hope that it would use it for disseminating the Census.
Q206 Chairman: Would you have
any London-specific concerns about having to compete for such
resources?
Tessa Jowell: About having to
bid?
Chairman: Given the very tight framework,
if there were to be a lot of pressure on funding for this kind
of detailed work on outputs, would this be to London's detriment
if there was not a good case put together?
Tessa Jowell: I would expect good
representation and advocacy on behalf of London, which underlines
the importance of these outputs and the process of developing
them being properly resourced. If they're not, it undermines the
value of the Census itself, which is a major public expenditure
commitment.
Q207 Mr. Slaughter: Can I
ask you specifically about the address register? Several people
have commented to us in positive terms about the fact that there
will be what should be the most authoritative address database
the country has ever seen, because it's drawn from local government,
the Ordnance Survey and the Post Office. I think it's come close
to home with us, because we all have experience of problems in
dealing with difficulties and inconsistencies there. Why is the
Government not trying to resolve the intellectual property issues,
so that that database, which a lot of effort is going into creating,
can be used after the Census?
Tessa Jowell: I think the Government
are trying to resolve the intellectual property issues.
Shaun Flanagan: On the creation
of the national address register, as the Minister said, the Census
is done independently of the Government. ONS received their money
to carry out the Census, and it was up to them, using their world-class
professional expertise on how to do it. This time, they decided
to produce an address register and send out the forms, as opposed
to hand delivering them, as in 2001. As I understand it, they
looked at all the different registers available. None of them
was sufficiently high-quality to meet their needs, so they embarked
on this exercise of producing a comprehensive register from three
different databases, supplemented by different information. All
three of those databases have commercial value and are sold to
make millions of pounds each year. As I understand it, when ONS
negotiated that contract, the only way in which the contract could
be negotiated was that it wouldn't be used for any other purpose
than carrying out the Census and improvements being fed back to
the three providers. That, as I understand it, is the basis on
which they were allowed to have access to those databases.
Q208 Mr. Slaughter: But if
it were to be any use, it would not only have to be available
on agreed terms; it would have to be maintained, because, clearly,
one of the issues is new properties, conversions and so on. London
is particularly vulnerable to that issue. Things get out of date
very quickly. Given the focus that there is now—whether
one supports it or not—on identity cards and knowing who
is who and where they are, the idea that you have the opportunity
to have what I think most people would think is a fairly uncontroversial
and basic database of what properties exist and where they are,
should this not be a priority to try and negotiate? There must
be a commercial basis on which something can be negotiated between
what are essentially public bodies anyway. Are you saying it's
not your job to do that?
Tessa Jowell: No, and it's not
Shaun's job to do that. It's the ONS's job to negotiate with the
three data suppliers to reach resolution on this question of the
ownership of intellectual property. Then, I think, there's a second
set of questions that you refer to, which is about the maintenance
of the accuracy of the register. Again, that sits as a responsibility
with ONS, but what we have to ensure is that local authorities
are well and vigorously represented in that process, both making
the case for maintenance, but also contributing to the maintenance
and accuracy of the register. That's why Barry Quirk's role in
London is so important, and there are other champions for every
region around the country. If I can suggest, the way to see this
is as a negotiation which is in process. There is no dispute about
the importance and benefits of resolving this. As I said, if it
would help the Committee, we'd be very happy to provide you with
a further note on progress, or you might want to ask ONS, which
would actually be more appropriate, to give you a note on the
progress of the negotiation.[2]
Q209 Mr. Slaughter: That goes
beyond the terms of this inquiry. None the less, it would be useful
if someone could report back to whatever body is here in the new
Parliament; we don't know whether the London Regional Select Committee
will be here, because that will depend on whether Parliament decides
to continue with one. However, this issue has implications for
council tax, electoral administration and other matters of that
kind. If it is agreeable to you, Chair, we should endeavour to
monitor this almost as a side or separate issue to see whether
the database negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily.
Shaun Flanagan: Just to add to
that, work is under way already. Discussions are taking place
between Ordnance Survey and local government on the information
IdEA—forgive me, but for the life of me, I can't remember
what it stands for. They are discussing the information they collect
and how it could be shared. You may be aware that Ordnance Survey
is consulting on whether the information that it collects should
be made freely available. A specific question in the consultation
asks whether a national address register would be useful and should
be made freely available. So there are things going on; the question
is who should make a substantive business case that these measures
are required and who should fund them.
Q210 Mr. Slaughter: But you
say the responsibility for pursuing that lies with ONS?
Shaun Flanagan: I think ONS would
dispute that.
Mr. Slaughter: That is the problem, isn't
it? Who is going to take responsibility for pursuing negotiations?
Tessa Jowell: ONS.
Mr. Slaughter: I thought Shaun just said
that wasn't the case.
Shaun Flanagan: Well, no, I'm
not saying that it would; we can tell it that this is something
that we would like to pursue. As I said, work is going on, and
things will develop. Discussions are taking place, and there is
the consultation, so things are going on.
Mr. Slaughter: They managed it with the
Domesday Book, so it shouldn't be beyond us.
Q211 Chairman: Thank you.
Just a last quick question on the Census. We heard concerns last
week about the recruitment of enumerators. This goes back to the
point that Mr. Flanagan made about national strategies and the
need for local solutions. It is a challenge and a real opportunity
to employ, train and gives skills and experience to people from
some of the core groups that face a challenge in terms of employment
and to use their community knowledge and skills to get to our
hard-to-reach groups. There was some sense that we are not yet
in a position where Capita is rising to that challenge. Can you
tell us—Mr. Hayes, you have Jobcentre Plus experience—whether
the issue can be taken up, not necessarily formally, to make sure
that we stretch every sinew in recruiting not only people with
the local skills to give us a good Census, but local people from
high-unemployment communities?
Tessa Jowell: Fewer staff will
be recruited for this Census, compared with the last Census, but
you make a really important point. The approach you describe helps
with local knowledge and understanding. I'm sure that that point
will not be lost on ONS.
Chairman: Thank you. The second part
of today's agenda concerns the Government Office for London.3
Shaun Flanagan: May I just add
one point of clarification on the address register? I'm sorry,
but the Department for Communities and Local Government is responsible
for local government and Ordnance Survey. It is the Department
of place, so it will probably be the better Department to take
forward the issue of the national address register.
Q212 Chairman: Marvellous.
To go back to the first point, will you do us a note—
Tessa Jowell: On the money?
Chairman: Will you just tell us where
you are at on that?
3 The transcript of the second part of the oral
evidence session is published as HC 409-i.
2 Ev 147 Back
| 
