§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin]
7.14 pm§ Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for my part in her having drawn the Thursday night short straw.
I have requested this debate because of the considerable significance of census data to all local authority areas. The collection of accurate information about the population and their characteristics is of incalculable importance, not least because the data that are collected now will form the basis for most of the standard spending assessment block calculations for the revenue support grant settlement in two years' time. The census statistics are the only source of much of the small areas data that local authorities draw on, especially data relating to ethnicity. This is, therefore, an issue of considerable importance to every Member of Parliament, every councillor and many others.
As the representative of an inner-London constituency, I am acutely concerned about this issue. Areas such as mine, in north Paddington and north Kensington, combine all the risk factors associated with poor data collection with all the factors contributing to high and complex levels of demand for services. This is particularly important in respect of ethnicity, because the service requirements of communities in which dozens of languages are spoken within a small area are quite different from and more complex than the needs of communities of similar social and economic characteristics in which there is perhaps only one language group.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the strong population growth in London in recent years, as measured by the mid-year estimates, demonstrates that the population growth is overwhelmingly young. That young population is, by definition, likely to consist of people who are having children now or will do so in the near future, for whom they will naturally expect nursery provision and education. The planning of those services is incredibly sensitive and important. This subject is dear to my heart at the moment because, as of a couple of weeks ago, 250 primary school children in one small area of north Westminster were still awaiting the allocation of a school place for this September.
Under-enumeration in the census, leading to a lack of reliable planning data and, possibly, to financial consequences in terms of grant allocation, has very serious consequences. Yet there can be little doubt that, in some small areas, serious under-enumeration has occurred.
I shall give some examples of where things have gone wrong in my area, and I would like to set them in context. I understand how hard the process is. Dealing with populations of inner-city constituencies such as mine involves assessing accommodation in multiple-occupation houses and in an increasing number of short-let tenancies, both of whose populations are extremely hard to keep track of. This places a huge responsibility on census enumeration, and it is no coincidence that the areas in which I suspect there is a serious problem of 1039 under-enumeration following this year's census are exactly the same areas as those where we also have the most critical problem of electoral registration. for example.
The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is aware of this problem, and has taken on board the fact that its current electoral registration process is problematic, and that a great many people may have lost their ability to register to vote as a consequence. I am certainly not saying, therefore, that all the problems arising from census enumeration can be laid at the door of the census and the Office for National Statistics. This is a very difficult job indeed.
I am also aware that the problems that we experienced in 2001 are not unique. The census also had huge problems in 1991, rooted in the effect of the poll tax. At that stage, there was clear evidence that a great number of people, particularly young people and those in inner-city populations, were deliberately avoiding the census because of the possible implications for registration for the poll tax. This time round, however, deliberate avoidance of being recorded in the census was negligible. In fact, members of the ethnic minority communities in my constituency, about whom I shall say more later, have stressed to me how keen they were to participate. There is a real awareness in those communities of the importance of their existence, extent and characteristics being recorded by the census, and they went out of their way to do everything possible to ensure that enumeration levels were high. Despite all that, we had some serious problems in some areas.
I received dozens of complaints, not least when on the doorstep in the election campaign. I have already referred many of them to the Office for National Statistics. However, clusters suggest the possibility of a deeper problem. For example, the Westway travellers site was missed out despite repeated requests for forms. The Catholic Children's Aid Society, which works closely with the travellers, took up the matter. That was resolved—I am pleased about that—but only after the Catholic Children's Aid Society had approached me and I had gone to the chief executive of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who ensured that enumerators got into the travellers site.
In Westminster, the residents association of the Fisherton street estate in NW8 wrote:
While allowing for the distress caused to residents on the Lisson Green Estate" —the subject of a front-page story in my local newspaper on census problems —please note the equally considerable distress caused to 99 per cent. of the residents in Dickens House (20 flats), Huxley House (20 flats), Landsmeer House (16 flats), Lilestone House (16 flats), Capland House (16 flats), Selena House (16 flats) and Gibbon House (16 flats) … despite requests, phonecalls, follow ups and assurance, not one word has been forthcoming to explain why an entire estate seems to have been excluded.Of note, I also wish to point out that enquiries and reports coming to me suggest that the way in which the Census, or lack of it, was handled in the multi-cultural and economically sensitive area of London deserves some sort of apology and explanation for the Bureau".1040 The director of Westminster Race Equality Council told me that scores of families from Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afro-Caribbean and other minority communities did not get forms. Abdul Toki, the chair of Marylebone Bangladeshi Association, said:
Families came to me saying no forms had been issued … I volunteered my time to accompany officials to flats at the beginning of May. I heard nothing.Since details have been passed to the ONS, action has been taken in those specific cases. I am grateful for that, and to people who have been active in local community organisations and gone out of their way to work with enumerators.I also pay tribute to the overwhelming majority of enumerators who did an excellent job. It is not an easy task, and they did as well as they could. However, the fact that I received such complaints from well organised groups such as the Marylebone Bangladeshi Association and residents associations makes me wonder about the extent of non-contacts in more diffuse areas. My greatest anxiety is about those who live in streets of properties in multiple occupation. Those people are not part of well defined and cohesive residents or ethnic minorities organisations.
I received several complaints about the difficulties of accessing the hotline and the lengthy delays in waiting for translation facilities on it. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux drew attention to the hotline problems, such as short holding times and restrictions on access for disabled people.
There were many problems, some of which have been redressed. I am not wholly confident, however, that we will not end up with pockets of significant under-enumeration. That is my key point. The census coverage survey, which will ascribe imputation figures to the populations, may constitute a robust and excellent statistical process. I have no doubt that it is, and that clever people will ensure that door-to-door under-enumeration is assessed accurately. But I am concerned that the characteristics that those numbers represent may not be properly reflected in the census coverage survey, simply because it is highly unlikely that such a survey can correctly ascribe the characteristics of the dozens and dozens and dozens of minority communities and language groups in such a hugely diverse community.
That is the nub of my case and I want the Minister—later, if not now—to assure me that the census coverage survey and the use of imputation figures will ensure that the numbers are both accurate and an adequate reflection of the diversity and characteristics of an under-enumerated population.
I hope that the Minister will do her best and work her hardest with the ONS to plug the gaps where she can through whatever possibilities remain in the direct process and through the census coverage survey. When the census data are published and used for rebasing the mid-year estimates, we will therefore be able to be confident that the hard pressed inner-city authorities that usually do an excellent job of providing services receive the resources that they require for the populations whom they serve. Those authorities are always looking for the complex pattern of demands made of them to be recognised, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate and I assure her that I am delighted to respond.
The 2001 census is important for my hon. Friend's constituents, the Government and the country. It is a vital source of information on the number and characteristics of the population. The information it gathers is used by the Government, local authorities and health authorities to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and, in particular, to distribute resources effectively at a local level. As she said, the results will be the evidence base that informs policy in many key areas for the next decade, so it is important that the information paints an accurate, authoritative and comparable picture of the UK's population and its needs.
Although we shall not have exact figures for the number of people counted until autumn next year, I believe that the census was successful. The return of census forms has been extremely high; the Office for National Statistics estimates that 95 per cent. have been returned and that the overall response will be as high, or higher, than that in 1991.
The 1991 census faced genuine difficulties in accurately counting some groups, and about 2 per cent. of people were not counted. By international standards, that is not a bad performance. Indeed, such under-coverage would not be a significant problem if it were evenly spread between groups in the population, as those missed could be assumed to share the characteristics of the others, but I believe that particular groups were not fully represented in the results.
In the example of young men in inner London and other cities, as many as 20 per cent. or more were missed, so our first challenge in planning the 2001 census was to ensure that those groups were properly counted. Since 1991, changes to population patterns have added to the difficulties that the ONS faces in compiling accurate census data on them. The size of some groups that are more difficult to count has increased, the number of people living alone and in properties with entryphone or other security controls has increased, which makes establishing contact more difficult, and life styles have become more varied, which makes it difficult to catch people at home.
My hon. Friend helped the census by pointing out many of those difficulties to my predecessor and I thank her for the work that she did to ensure that those groups were properly represented. As she said, the groups that are difficult to count accurately during the census are often those that need particular support from the Government, so under-counting has a disproportionate effect on the resource decisions made on the basis of census data. That is why planning for the 2001 census began with the establishment of a coherent strategy to ensure that those groups were accurately counted, and why the final results presented a representative picture of local and national populations.
The main aims published in the census White Paper in March 1999 were to ensure that the questions asked would provide useful information, to ensure that the results would be of good quality and would be produced according to a sensible timetable, to ensure that the whole 1042 operation was acceptable to the public and to ensure that the census represented value for money. A key priority was to reduce under-counting of particular groups, and to ensure that the results of the census would command the confidence of those who rely on them. That is most critical when the results are used for resource allocation to local authorities and health authorities.
The plans for the 2001 census took on board a range of lessons learned from difficulties encountered in the 1991 census. They also recognised the impact of changes in society and changing needs for information, among Government and others.
The plans for the census were subject to full and open scrutiny before being approved, and were properly developed and funded well in advance. The strategy for the conduct of the census had two main parts. We wanted to ensure that the highest possible enumeration was achieved., paying particular attention to the groups most likely to be under-counted. We also wanted to compensate for any bias by producing a final set of figures giving an accurate picture of the real population in the groups and areas that were under-counted.
Let me explain how we attempted to achieve high returns. For the census in England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics established a range of procedures to ensure good coverage of all members of the population. It was expected that major urban areas, especially in London, would present a major challenge. Areas with high levels of ethnic-minority populations, multi-occupancy accommodation, estates with poor-quality housing or apartments protected by entryphone and other security systems would require particular attention. Arrangements were made to enumerate special population groups including the forces, students, rough sleepers, refugees and asylum seekers. Planning for the census was aimed at ensuring all those groups and areas were properly enumerated, including areas in which there had been significant under-counting in the 1991 census.
The ONS adopted a variety of approaches to overcome specific difficulties. A major initiative was the local community liaison programme, in which the ONS worked with minority groups, charitable organisations and local and health authorities to encourage participation in the census and to help to identify sources of potential field staff. The questions and guidance on the census forms were translated into 24 languages, with a further two, Korean and Tamil, added during the fieldwork period. Interpreters were available to be used where necessary. Census materials were prepared in Braille, in large print and on audio tape. A publicity campaign sought to encourage universal self-inclusion. Publicity was also targeted at sectors of the community in which there had been significant under-enumeration in the 1991 census.
Recruitment for the census aimed to ensure that local people who understood the local area carried out the work. Finding the right number of staff with the right qualities proved particularly tough in some inner-city areas. A number of local authorities, including Westminster city council, gave the ONS a great deal of support to ensure that recruitment was effective.
Once they were recruited, training given to field staff emphasised the importance of making contact with householders. Census enumerators were required to make a number of calls during the census operation in order to make initial contact and to follow up households that had 1043 not responded. At the end of the main enumeration period, there was a further follow-up by team leaders and district managers of households that had still not responded. Enumerators in inner-city areas were given smaller work loads, so that they could spend more time on making contact and returning to households that had not responded. Collection of forms used a team approach that had been shown in tests to improve morale and overall response in hard-to-count areas.
That was the first leg of the strategy. It was designed to target resources on the more difficult areas, in order to increase response and reduce differential under-coverage.
The second part of the strategy was to put in place a robust and accurate method for taking proper account of the people who inevitably were missed and to produce a single set of numbers that everyone could trust. It was critical to produce final figures that were authoritative at local authority level. To ensure that the procedure adopted would command confidence, a steering committee for this part of the project was established, involving academics with international reputations in the field, other experts and representatives of central and local government as well as the census offices.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the census coverage survey was central to this strategy. The survey was conducted immediately after the census. It sought to measure how effectively the census counted households and people by interviewing a cross-section of the population and carefully matching the results from this survey with the census. In England and Wales the survey covered approximately 300,000 households in 20,000 postcodes selected to form a representative sample capable of producing reliable figures for each local authority area. I emphasise that the census coverage survey was broad enough and independent enough to be reliable at individual local authority area level. That was an important feature.
By using the findings of the coverage survey in combination with the findings from the census, the characteristics of those groups that were missed can be imputed and added to the original census database. While small pockets and particular groups of people may have been missed from the original census, the characteristics of the groups from which they are drawn should be covered by the combination of the census and the census coverage survey. It will then be up to the individual local authority to allocate its resources according to its local knowledge and to make up for any small gaps that it thinks may have occurred.
The whole approach was thoroughly tested in a dress rehearsal for the census in 1999, involving some 150,000 households. The areas chosen for the tests included a cross-section of the population and types of housing found in the country as a whole. They included areas with high levels of multi-occupancy, student accommodation, hotels and holiday accommodation, and various ethnic minority groups.
The final element of the strategy involves a series of plausibility checks against other information. For example, by rolling forward the number of births and deaths and adjusting for migration effects it is possible to get a high-level estimate of the numbers in each age group. By looking at the numbers receiving child benefit or retirement pensions it is possible to assess the aggregate numbers and locations of people in each of 1044 these groups. These plausibility checks form part of a comprehensive quality assurance process that has been designed to reflect the inevitable difficulties that would be encountered, especially among hard-to-count groups. Of course, the real test of this two-stage strategy will be how well it works in practice.
The enumeration itself began in April. London was always expected to present particular difficulties in getting a good level of response, and special attention was focused on it during the planning stages. The procedures that were put in place to ensure the best possible response had a significant effect and there have been good reports from across the capital. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised with my predecessor, for example, show the type of situation that arose. Census staff were ready and prepared to follow up concerns so that the job was done as well as possible.
It was inevitable that planning for an operation on the scale and complexity of the census would not cover all the circumstances that could arise, but throughout the census period ONS sought to respond to issues of concern as they emerged.
I note my hon. Friend's point on the census helpline. It was planned to cope with a threefold increase in calls compared with 1991, but the interest was such that 250,000 calls were received on just one day in the week before the census—as many as were received during the entire period last time. ONS installed large numbers of extra lines within 48 hours and the service was improved.
An additional factor was that in this census the public were asked to post their forms back as soon as possible after the census day on 29 April. There was an extremely high return of forms, which the ONS estimates as being close to 90 per cent. of the forms delivered.
§ Ms BuckAlthough I accept the point that the helpline was improved, on a number of occasions people left messages or made contact saying that they had not received a return call, or said that it had taken many, many calls to secure information. I do not expect an immediate answer, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could let me know what monitoring was carried out of the information received through the helpline, so that we can establish why some cases were not followed up promptly and accurately and forms were not despatched.
§ Ruth KellyOf course, I shall take note of the points made by my hon. Friend. I can assure her that I shall look into that issue and reply to her.
As I was saying, there was an extremely high return of forms—about 90 per cent. of the forms delivered. Field staff returned to households, as planned, to retrieve forms that were not returned by post. The ONS estimates that 95 per cent. of all forms are now back and that most of the remaining 5 per cent. relate to vacant addresses.
Following the census, the census coverage survey took place between 24 May and 17 June. The outcome was better than the rehearsal, with a national response rate of more than 90 per cent. The exact figure for the number of people counted in the 2001 census will be available in August 2002, when information from the census forms, the enumerators' books and the results of the census 1045 coverage survey will have been analysed. The ONS is confident that the overall response will be as high, if not higher, than in 1991.
When the results of the census and the census coverage survey have been analysed there will be a set of figures for each local authority area that will be comparable and consistent. Any under-counting of particular groups will have been kept as low as possible and, where it exists, 1046 will have been taken into account in the final results. Despite the best endeavours of all, some people will have been missed, but the strategy is designed to ensure that they will not lose out in resource allocation.
I believe that the census will meet its objectives and that local authorities, including Westminster, will not lose out when the final count is in and the strategy as a whole bears fruit.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.