---

London Population (ONS)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is consensus on this between all three parties in the Association of London Government, and this view was endorsed by its leaders’ committee in its most up-to-date report only a few weeks ago. I have set out why this matter is important for the levels of funding for personal services, adult services and children’s services, the capitation formula for primary care trust funding and the dedicated schools grant. All those issues and more depend on getting this right. The criticisms have been well set out and, with respect, it is not good enough for the Government to retreat into the position that they and the ONS have so far adopted, saying that they have used the best available statistics. In this case, the best available statistics are demonstrably wrong. The final piece of evidence that I should like to pray in aid is a survey by the City of Westminster which shows that some 40,000 new national insurance numbers were issued to residents of Westminster between 2002 and 2004. That represents a 17 per cent. increase on the 2001 base population. It might shock hon. Members to learn that that survey also shows that about 20,000 people arrive at Victoria coach station every week, predominantly from eastern Europe. For at least some of the time after they arrive in the UK, they will be in London. 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 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.