01 November 2002
The Office for National Statistics this week mounted a staunch defence of the way it compiled the 2001 census after fears about the data grew.
Members of the London Assembly are urging its budget committee to examine the financial implications of London's apparent fall in population, amid concerns that it could mean substantial cuts to the Greater London Authority's funding.
Bob Neill, chair of the Assembly's planning committee, has called on Mayor Ken Livingstone to work with the London boroughs to 'make representations' to safeguard the capital's interests. 'This is potentially very alarming news for London and it is important to highlight the seriousness of the issue,' he added.
But John Pullinger, the ONS's director of social statistics and manager of the 2001 census, has rebutted claims that the methodology used was 'severely flawed'. In a letter to Public Finance, Pullinger said the large falls in populations in some authorities had been caused by previous overestimates in the mid-year population figures produced annually by the ONS. This was not, as councils such as Westminster and Manchester believe, a failure to reflect properly the high turnover of residents in some areas.
'The 2001 census figures have been through a rigorous process of quality assurance both nationally and for each of the 376 local authorities in England and Wales,' Pullinger wrote. 'They provide the best possible figures on the size of the population resident in each local authority.'
But PF has learned that Westminster council, which has been leading the campaign to have the census data re-examined, has commissioned research specialists Mori to conduct its own 'mini-census'.
An internal briefing makes clear that Mori has been asked specifically to 'test the validity of the 2001 census'. It goes on to say that the firm will undertake 'statistical analysis to precisely measure the reliability of data and calculate the population'. The results are expected by January.
As PF went to press, Pullinger was due to attend a meeting on October 31, organised by the Royal Society of Statistics, in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
Many of the 32 authorities that have 'lost' more than 5% of their residents will have representatives there. The ONS director has already written to all the chief executives offering individual meetings to discuss their concerns.
One source involved in the dispute said Pullinger would use the RSS meeting to try to convince critics the data was robust and stop the potentially damaging argument from escalating.
'He wants to blow away the opposition in an academic setting. If he can persuade the sceptics all in one go, then any individual meeting will be a lot easier.'
PFnov2002
