From Phil Perchard.
WHEN people jump to the wrong conclusion, they invariably do so on the basis of false assumptions and inadequate information.

The population growth policy as outlined in the Strategic Plan White Paper is a classic example of this.

The population policy for Jersey is based on assumptions of fertility and mortality rates which have been derived from inaccurate and unreliable data supplied by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Furthermore, the degree of error in the data is ‘unknowable but possibly large’.

The unreliability of the data is exemplified by the fact that the ONS, where necessary, will modify the underlying assumptions every two years, according to the latest population figures.

This adjustment of the assumptions to fit the latest figures clearly demonstrates the unreliability of the population model as a forecasting tool. When gaps appear between the forecasts and actual results, they are simply patched up with statistical Polyfilla.

Professor David Coleman is a member of the panel of leading experts who advise and oversee the work of the ONS. In the memorandum to the House of Commons Treasury Committee in December 2007 he stated: ‘All aspects of population statistics in the United Kingdom are in an unsatisfactory state … even the 2001 census, designed to be infallible, has had to be revised twice and its incompatibilities with other sources patched up with statistical Polyfilla.

‘With present systems, the degree of error is unknowable but possibly large. Internal migration and local population estimates are based on obsolete and often wrong census counts. Current huge migration flows quickly render estimates out of date.

The Council of Ministers proposal to increase the population by 150 households per year until 2035 has been made on the back of the ONS assumptions regarding fertility and mortality rates which may well be out of date within two years.

Also, the effect of natural catastrophes such as extreme weather events (heat waves in summer, colder-than-average winters, violent storms etc) and epidemics and pandemics (bird flu) are not taken into account in the population forecasts for Jersey.

Extreme events such as these do have a profound impact on mortality rates, particularly among the aged, and such events will have an enduring impact on population age-profile projections.

Add to this the failure to factor in unemployment figures we are left with nothing that could remotely be described as adequate information or reliable assumptions.

It is clear that the policy to help mitigate the effects of an ageing population by growing the population has been made using forecasts based on false assumptions and inadequate information, thus rendering the forecasts useless.

Since the population growth policy of 150 households per annum is based on these forecasts, it must also follow that this policy is a nonsense and that it has lead us to the wrong conclusion.
Roselea Farm,
Grande Route de Faldouet,
St Martin.