I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Cabinet Office.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated December 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which has responsibility for the England & Wales Census, I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, asking which local authorities have raised concerns about the 2011 Census and its outputs in their areas. (132274)

Since the publication of the census population estimates in July, ONS has received queries from a number of local authorities, a few of which were expressing concern but mainly seeking clarification. For example, some queries were asking for an explanation of the difference with the previously published mid-year population estimates, which have now been revised on the basis of the 2011 Census. Others were asking about the comparisons which ONS had published with administrative sources.

ONS has responded to these enquiries in an open and timely manner, giving explanations with strong supporting evidence, as well as clear guidance on the methodology and quality assurance processes used. The local authorities that have expressed concerns, with whom we are still in discussion are: Tendring District Council, Ceredigion County Council, St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, Westminster City Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. Through the ongoing dialogue and correspondence, ONS has not been presented with any clear evidence that contradicts the population estimates resulting from the 2011 Census. ONS will continue to support all local authorities that have any question or concerns regarding the 2011 Census outputs.

I have full confidence in the Census population estimates, which are based on a robust and peer reviewed statistical estimation methodology, and an extensive quality assurance process involving experts. The checks and adjustments that have been made in order to arrive at the Census estimates have been published in Quality Assurance packs for every Local Authority.

Statutory powers exist to issue an amending report on the Local Government Finance settlement for a particular year.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated December 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which has responsibility for the Census for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question.

The population of the London Borough of Westminster as estimated at the 2011 Census and published on 24 September was 219,396. The 99 per cent confidence interval for Westminster is ± 3.9 per cent. This equates to a population range of between 210,800 and 228,000. The more usual measure of 95 per cent confidence is for Westminster ± 3.0 per cent, equating to a range of population of between 212,800 and 226,000.

The Localism Act conferred on the Mayor of London responsibility for housing, economic development and Olympic legacy in London, in addition to existing responsibilities over transport, planning and the police.

Spending and service design decisions regarding how best to meet the challenges arising from London's increasing population are therefore generally a matter for the Mayor of London and the boroughs, though there are implications for all areas of government policy.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated October 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office by what proportion the over 85 population in (a) Mid Sussex and (b) West Sussex is forecast to rise over the next 20 years. [123531]

Estimates of future population are available as population projections. The most recent sub national population projections are based on mid-year population estimates for 2011 but only project the population growth for 10 years to 2021, therefore the

2010-based sub national projections have been used to respond to your Parliamentary Question. These projections do not take account of results of the 2011 Census.

Sub national population projections are not forecasts and do not attempt to predict the impact of future government policies, changing economic circumstances or the capacity of an area to accommodate a change in population. They provide an indication of the future size and age structure of the population if recent demographic trends continued.

Between mid-2012 and mid-2032, the over 85 population in Mid Sussex is, rounded to the nearest 100, projected to rise from 3,000 to 6,800, an increase of 122 percent. Looking at this as a proportion of the total population, the over 85 population is projected to increase by approximately two percentage points from 2.2 to 4.4 per cent.

Between mid-2012 and mid-2032, the over 85 population in West Sussex, rounded to the nearest 100, is projected to rise from 23,500 to 47,000, an increase of 101 percent. Looking at this as a proportion of the total population, the over 85 population is projected to increase by approximately two percentage points from 2.9 to 5.0 per cent.

The over 85 age group has been defined as those aged 86 and over.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated October 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of the increase in the UK population between 2001 and 2011, as reported in the recent census, was due to net foreign immigration in that period plus (a) the children subsequently born in the UK to those immigrants and (b) all children born in the UK in the same period to all foreign born mothers (123518).

The exact information requested, on the proportion of the increase in the UK population between 2001 and 2011 that was due to net foreign immigration, is not available. While ONS has released the first set of census estimates for England and Wales, UK estimates will not be available until all of the census offices have published the necessary data. At time of writing, this is expected to be December 2012.

The recent census release identified that approximately 56 per cent of the increase in the population of England and Wales between 2001 and 2011 was due to net migration. However, this is only a proxy for net foreign immigration as it will include both UK born migrants and moves between England and Wales and the other UK constituent countries.

ONS is due to revise population estimates for England and Wales for the period between 2001 and 2011 to reflect the results of the 2011 Census. This will include an estimate of the population change that is due to net international migration, which is a better proxy for net foreign immigration as it will not include moves made between England and Wales and the other UK countries. However, these estimates will not be available until December 2012.

During the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010 inclusive, there were 1,411,519 live births in England and Wales to mothers born outside the UK (21.4 per cent of all live births in England and Wales during this period). Figures for live births where the mother is non-UK born are compiled from birth registration data. Information on country of birth of mothers is provided by the informant at registration.

It is not possible to identify the number of children subsequently born in the UK to immigrants who arrived between 2001 and 2010 as information on year of mothers' arrival in the UK is not collected at birth registration. This means that it is not possible to distinguish between (i) births to mothers who were born outside the UK and migrated to the UK between 2001 and 2010 and (ii) births to mothers born outside the UK who migrated to the UK prior to 2001.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for the Office for National Statistics, to Lord Patten, dated September 2012

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics I have been asked to reply to your question to Her Majesty's Government asking what estimate they have made of when the population of London will reach 8.6 million people. its former peak, and what assessment they have made of the implications of such a size for the rest of the United Kingdom. [HL2008]

Estimates of future population are available as population projections. The most recent sub-national population projections are based on mid-year population estimates for 2010 and they project the population of London to reach 8.6 million by mid-2016.

Sub-national population projections are not forecasts and do not attempt to predict the impact of future government policies, changing economic circumstances or the capacity of an area to accommodate a change in population. They provide an indication of the future size and age structure of the population if recent demographic trends continued.

The Office for National Statistics is an independent non-ministerial department and does not comment on any assessments of the implications of projected population size.

There are many factors influencing population change across the whole of the UK, and at a more local level it is for departments to consider the implications of population change on their policy areas.

I am not grateful for that cynical, backward-looking answer, which did not recognise the fact that not one of the fresh, dynamic teams that have been welcomed to the House for the past 42 years has reduced recidivism by one iota. People are still committing crime, and the same percentage of them are returning to prison. Can we say a word of regret for the loss of one of our few civilised, vintage politicians, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who demonstrated that he had a working brain and that he understood the benefits of remedial work in prison? Have we not, sadly, exchanged old lace for arsenic?

Has the new Secretary of State, whom I warmly welcome to his post, had a chance to look at a report from the National Audit Office which was published today? It says that the dropping of the previous Secretary of State’s proposal to let prisoners out early if they pleaded guilty, or to reduce their sentences, would lead to an increase in prison numbers, and that we therefore need to maintain our full prison estate.

One way of reducing the number of short-sentence prisoners would be to extend the intensive alternative to custody programme, which has been pioneered in Greater Manchester. When the Secretary of State makes his early visit to Manchester following the invitation issued earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he take a look for himself at how that programme is reducing reoffending, and how it could be rolled out still further?

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts. Does he agree that, with the annual cost per prisoner standing at about £40,000 and that figure rising to about £100,000 for young people, it is very sensible, partly in order to save money, to look for alternatives, in particular with regard to short-term schemes? Will he at least look at saving money in that way, which would also enable us to deal better with these people and help make sure rehabilitation happens?

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

We will wait and see whether the right hon. Gentleman keeps his brief, but I hope we will be debating for more than a few months; we could do with more certainty in the Justice Department. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, the National Audit Office has said today that, as a result of this Government’s botched policies over the past 28 months, there is now a £130 million black hole in the MOJ budget. We also know that our prisons and probation services are overstretched. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House and the British public that, unlike the previous Justice Secretary, he will not risk public safety or let victims down in his attempts to fill the black hole?

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons recently said of HMP Liverpool that

“resettlement resources were not adequate to meet the needs of the population held, with backlogs of the reviews necessary to address offending behaviour and little planning for short-term prisoners.”

Given that HMIP report, what comfort can the Minister provide to my constituents that he is taking seriously the important issue of an overstretched service?

I have no plans to reduce the prison population. The only changes that I want to see in it will result from our returning more foreign national prisoners to their countries of origin, and—crucially—doing a much better job in rehabilitating offenders, so that far fewer people come back to prison.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have not had a chance to look at that report yet. I will look at it and come back to him. Generally, resettlement is hugely important. We are keen to see offenders get back into the community and straight into productive work, which is one reason we want offenders to be admitted quickly on to the Work programme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced so successfully in his last job.

I can absolutely give that assurance. As I said earlier, I have looked at the Department’s finances and it is on track to deliver the savings that it needs to deliver. My view is that reform is about delivering more for less, not about endangering public safety.

I look forward to many months of debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe absolutely that the rehabilitation revolution should be at the top of the agenda. We want to deliver a system whereby we no longer send young people inadequately supported back out on to the streets, to reoffend and then go back to prison. I believe in having the right number of people in prison. We need our courts to send to prison people who need a prison sentence, but I also believe in doing everything we can to prevent them from going back.