4 Government use of Census outputs
131. The Department for Communities and Local Government
has ring-fenced a total of around £29 billion to be distributed
across England in formula grant in 2010-11.[111]
In order to allocate this in reasonably direct proportion to local
authorities' populations, it is vital that population projections
are accurate.
132. While population projections for the purposes
of resource allocation are not directly based on decennial Census
data, the Census outputs provide the base for calculation of annual
mid-year population estimates. In addition, a range of Census
outputs influence decisions that form the basis of sub-national
population projections. Questions relating to age, gender, fertility,
mortality and migration are key to enhancing the accuracy of such
projections.[112]
133. It has been acknowledged throughout the evidence
we have taken that London has the largest number of hard-to-count
groups at a Census, and a substantial population that the Census
does not even attempt to count. A large proportion of this population
is comprised of internal migrants as well as international migrants,
all contributing to a considerable short-term population churn
in London which is difficult to capture in official statistics.
134. Many London boroughs currently use locally-derived
data to supplement population estimates. Data sources commonly
relied upon by boroughs include school data, GP registers, National
Insurance numbers, and electoral rolls. However, boroughs accept
that these sources alone cannot reflect their populations.[113]
This is because the groups who are typically not recognised by
the Census are similarly not recognised in these datasets. The
London Borough of Havering suggested to us that new migrants may
not register at a GP's surgery, simply preferring to attend hospital
if necessary, and similarly may not be registered on the electoral
roll.[114] Furthermore,
whilst some short-term migrants may be identified in these local
registers, when they have been omitted from estimates or the Census,
their presence is dependent upon the length of their stay and
their level of interaction with local services.
135. Boroughs have taken the opportunity to raise
with us their concerns about the use of population data by the
Government in determining funding settlements over the past decade.
It would take an inquiry with far greater scope than ours fully
to unpick the detailed criticisms which have been made about the
use of data used by ONS to calculate mid-year population estimates
and sub-national population projections.
136. For example, London Councils and the London
Borough of Southwark both raised with us the changes made by ONS
in 2007 to its methodology for apportioning migration flows to
the UK across mid-year population estimates. When applied to the
2004 mid-year estimates and projected forward to 2010 in the ONS
sub-national population projections, Southwark Council estimated
that this recalculation had led to a reduction in London's total
estimated population of 109,000 in 2008, 123,000 in 2009 and 138,000
in 2010. These new figures were used by the Department for Communities
and Local Government in calculating the share of formula grant
to be assigned to London boroughs. London Councils estimated that
the consequent loss to London boroughs in undamped formula grant
between 2008-09 and 2010-11 has been £130 million.[115]
137. The issue of population projection re-basing
in 2007 following the recalculation of migration statistics is
not, strictly speaking, one which concerns the Census. But a more
robust and accurate system for statistical projections, which
commands greater confidence in London boroughs, must start with
a better 2011 Census, with a far higher response rate across Inner
and Outer London boroughs and less reliance on imputation of results.
138. We have indicated above the submissions made
by a number of boroughs who believe that they have lost funding
as a result of 2001 Census errors, compounded by inaccurate mid-year
estimates and population projections. The Government Office for
London told us that they had not attempted to estimate the possible
losses to London in funding as a result of flaws in the Census
base: "it would be difficult to establish a correct figure
without running all those [funding] formulae nationally again,
because of the way that is constructed."[116]
139. The Minister for London undertook to provide
us with a calculation of the extent to which London boroughs had
lost out through errors in the 2001 Census, though she indicated
there were substantial methodological problems with making a calculation.[117]
We recommend that, in its response to our report, the Government
include the memorandum promised by the Minister for London on
the effect on London boroughs of population underestimates in
the 2001 Census outputs and subsequently.
140. We heard from the Minister for London that many
of the financial consequences for London boroughs of statistical
undercounting in previous years would be mitigated by the effects
of floor damping in the allocation of formula grant, ensuring
that "no authority gets less than the previous year on a
like-for-like basis."[118]
Tony Travers put it more starkly:
"[...] as we move to an era where grants
are not going up very much from year to year, whatever is going
into these formulae is not going to affect the distribution of
grant, because we are moving very rapidly towards an effective
freeze on the grant. Many London boroughs are already very close
to a grant freeze anyway. If there is a grant freeze from year
to year, all of this numeric need assessment would actually matter
much less."[119]
141. While the logic of this argument may be clear,
it provides little excuse for any inaccurate counting, estimation
or projection forward of the numbers of people in London for whom
London boroughs are expected to provide services over the next
decade. Funding for local government in London should accurately
reflect the needs of the population which local government serves.
As we stated at the opening of our report, without an accurate,
accepted calculation of who lives in London, all other discussions
about services in the capital are undermined.
111 Written Ministerial Statement by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local
Government, Official Report, 26 November 2009, columns
87-88WS. Back
112
Ev 121 [London Borough of Redbridge] Back
113
Ev 135 [London Borough of Havering] Back
114
Ibid. Back
115
Ev74[LondonCouncils]andQ114: London Councils have subsequently
written to clarify the figure [Ev 148]. Back
116
Q190[ChrisHayes] Back
117
Q188. Back
118
Q 202 Back
119
Q 15 Back
| 
