To Paul Spicker and other Radstats members.
Everything depends on whether the census was accurate. Is the population
really nearly a million smaller than previously estimated? I doubt it.
I make the following comments
COMMENT ONE
The city of Westminster have produced an evaluation of the census (go to
www.westminster.gov.uk then type in 'census' in 'search').
Here is an extract:
"The Office of National Statistics (ONS) released the first results of the
2001 Census on 30thSeptember 2002. The Census figure for Westminster's
population is 181,279 which, when compared with 244,597 in the 2000 Mid Year
Estimate, represents a loss of 63,318 or 25.9 percent. The Census is
purported to be the definitive figure for population in the United Kingdom
but Westminster City Council has gathered extensive evidence to support its
claim that the City's population, as estimated by the 2001 Census, has been
significantly understated.Westminster is currently rated as one of the
highest performing Councils in the country and faces immense pressures for
housing, social services and education in the heart of London.The result of
this flawed Census will be an estimated £40m reduction in the Council's
formula grant assessments. Unless the government persuades the ONS to revise
its populationestimate, education will be cut and services to the most
vulnerable members of our community may be cut as expenditure on services is
aligned to a grant regime which is derived from anartificial 'statistical'
population rather than the actual one.According to the 2001 Census all of
the boroughs surrounding Westminster have seen significant percentage
increases in population since 1991 whereas Westminster is unique in
experiencing a decline. If the Census were correct, Westminster's population
would havedecreased by 7,000 in the last 20 years (ONS now states that the
Mid 1981 population estimate is the last 'reliable' population data they
have released). This contradicts all the available evidence. Key indicators
providing evidence of population growth in Westminster include:. Recent
analysis based on the number households on the Council Tax register and
electoral registration data suggests that Westminster's population is in the
region of 231,200.. Westminster's Local Government electoral roll has
increased by 26% since 1991. National Health Service Patients Registers in
Westminster have grown by 38,256 (19%)between 1991 and 2001, and by 11,000
people in the last four years alone. Between 1991 and 2001 8,074 new
residential properties were completed in Westminster.. The number of
domestic dwellings increased by 8.6% between 1992 and 2001.. In the last
decade Westminster has experienced a 28% increase in primary school
rolls.Secondary school rolls have experienced 15% growth.Westminster City
Council has made repeated requests for information and data from the ONS to
clarify the extent of under-enumeration, response, coverage, imputation and
qualityassurance without success despite their own Code of Practice stating
"As much data as isreliable and practicable will be made available, subject
to legal and confidentiality restraints."
Underenumeration
Westminster and Central London generally are by far the hardest places to
carry out an effective and reliable Census. Westminster experienced one of
the worst response rates (74%) and highest confidence intervals (+/-4.6%) in
the UK. The concentration of hard to count groups and difficulties in
identifying isolated and hidden populations is greater in Central London
than anywhere else in the UK.The extent to which hard to count groups are
disproportionately prevalent in Westminster is illustrated by the following
statistics which collectively would all pose significant problems for the
effective conduct of a Census: . Large number of asylum seekers (2,094 in
2001) . Large number of hidden asylum seekers whom have not been allowed to
stay but who have mostly stayed anyway. Language barriers (116 different
languages are spoken in the Westminster) . High levels of mobility (60,000
turnover of residents in Westminster annually) Large numbers of gated and
concierged properties Significant numbers of Houses of Multiple Occupation
(1,102 containing more than 16,000 residents)".
The evaluation goes on to point out that the sampling period (May 26 to June
17) coincided with half term in London's schools meaning families in
WestMINSTER - where a a disproportionately large number of residents have
second homes or have close relatives living overseas - were unavailable to
be interviewed.
In another document "Why the census is wrong for Westminster" , Westminster
point out that even local MP, Mark Field, along with many of his neighbours,
did not receive a census form!
COMMENT TWO
Now look at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the report by
Roger Morgan in Burisa no. 154, December 2002 .He comments that the census
response rate was only 64% , which means that 36% of their population and
their characteristics in the final tables will be imaginary. "We ask
ourselves", he says, if the Census methodology is reliable at 64%".Examining
the sex ratio data he notes missing young men. And he comments:
ONS (Office of National Statistics) claims these young men are genuinely
missing from the country, undetected in the poor out-migration data. It
seems to us equally likely that they are unconcerned with civic duty..."
.He ends by saying that they are officially disputing their census result.
COMMENT THREE
Manchester are also very unhappy and were when I enquired late January they
were involved with legal proceedings.
COMMENT FOUR
Bristol think they have evidence the census result was too low for Bristol
COMMENT FIVE
Now this is part of what Ray Thomas of the Open University wrote to Radstats
17th Jan:
"Yet the ONS persistently declines to make direct investigation of reasons
for the low response rates among what it calls 'hard to enumerate groups'.
Government statisticians and others just shake their heads and mutter
regretfully ' it is happening everywhere'. The outcome of this substitution
of statistical estimation for social investigation had been to substantially
reduce estimates of the total population and to conclude that 800,000 of the
hardest to enumnerate groups have emigrated. Emigration on this scale is not
corroborated by other sources of information. If hundreds of thousands of
men in went abroad for a visit but then decided to stay there must be
hundreds of thousands of girl-friends and wives who must feel deserted. Is
there any evidence of the existence of hundreds of thousand of girl friends
and wives in this kind of situation?"
See also on Radtstats:
Ludi Simpson 4th April
Ray Thomasn 6th Oct
Simon Briscoe 7th Oct
Ray Thomas 8th Oct
Kevin McConway 8th oct
Ray Thomas 13th Nov
COMMENT SIX
Finally, I tell you what I think - my own private view, not necessarily the
view of any group. I think there may have been uncorrected massive
underenumeration. I wonder if two major causes of this could be:
(i) Illegal immigrants. There is evidence to suggest there are vast, I
repeat vast numbers of illegal immigrants in our country.They would
certainly have wanted to keep out of the way on census day.
(ii) Ist generation ethnic minorities. There are large numbers of ethnic
minority people who are legally in the UK and arrived in recent years.
Will not some, perhaps many of these, have come from countries where a) it
is safest not to be noticed at all by the authorities, and b), if you are
noticed and questioned it is safest to give the answer you think your
interlocutor wants, rather than the truth? With this background, how will
they have responded to the census in the UK?
Yours sincerely,
John Barker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Spicker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: More on migration
> While hunting through some of the census figures, I came across some
> information on migration estimates at
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260
>
> published on 28th November 2002. The ONS states:
>
> "The estimated population of the United Kingdom at mid-2001, based on
these
> Census results was 58,837,000. This estimate is 919,000 lower than the
> estimated population at mid-2000. This overestimation of the population
was
> mainly due to the overestimation of the net flow of international migrants
> into the United Kingdom."
>
> The problem with the net migration estimates, then, is not that they have
> been too low, but that they have been too high.
>
> Paul Spicker
> Professor of Public Policy
> Centre for Public Policy and Management
> The Robert Gordon University
> Kepplestone Mansion
> Aberdeen AB15 7AW
> Scotland
>
> Tel: + 44 (0) 1224 263120
> Fax: + 44 (0) 1224 263112
>
> Edinburgh Office:
> The Robert Gordon University
> Dolphin House
> 4 Hunter Square
> Edinburgh EH1 1QW
>
> Tel: + 44 (0) 131 226 7971
>
> Website: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|
