Census 2011: Why the numbers don't add up Here it is, the figure we have been waiting for since March 27 last year, when most of us sat down to fill in the census form: 57,877,800. Or rather, that is the population total for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For some reason, the people of Scotland will have to wait for their results. However, this gives us a pretty good idea of the size of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, since we can add roughly another five million to the total announced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) yesterday, taking it to around 63 million. This is greater than had been expected. The population of England and Wales is 3.7 million higher than at the last census 10 years ago, an increase of 7 per cent, and grew at twice the rate of the previous decade. That is the biggest rise in modern times - greater even than in the baby boomer years after the Second World War, when it was driven by a jump in the birth rate. By contrast, this latest increase has been fuelled predominantly by the unprecedented levels of immigration that followed Labour taking power in 1997, with nearly 200,000 people a year being added to the population. In addition, more of us are staying alive for longer. One in six of the population is aged over 65 and this proportion is accelerating rapidly. Today, the median age is 39; in 1911, it was 25. Today, there are 430,000 people aged over 90; 100 years ago, there were just 13,000. This is of more than just passing interest to academic demographers and statisticians. An accurate measurement of population is crucial to ensure the fair allocation of money for public services. But the itinerant nature of urban populations makes it hard to keep track of them and the last census in 2001 managed to mislay about one million young people. This time, the ONS appears to have discovered some 480,000 people it was not expecting to find. These uncertainties are likely to lead to a fresh series of challenges from local authorities who simply do not recognise the figures for their areas. The 2011 census reveals that the official numbers have previously understated the scale of net migration by 14 per cent - and that does not take into account illegal immigrants, who would not complete the census form. Westminster city council in London said it had "serious concerns" about figures that suggested its population had dropped by 9 per cent since the last estimate a year ago, while the council's own data report a rise in numbers paying council tax. In the recent past, Manchester, Bristol and other towns have also disputed ONS figures, which affect the money they get for services. While many immigrants, such as those from Eastern Europe, are hard working and skilled, they and their families require housing and health care, and their children need schooling. Often, the latter is more expensive because they do not speak English as a first language. But there is another problem. The population is rising faster than at any time since the 19th century and yet the support ratio - the number of people of working age compared with those in retirement - is lower than ever. In 1961, there were about five workers for each pensioner; now, there are just over three, and the ratio will decline rapidly unless the state pension age is increased to about 70, which it will have to be. However, that will just make it more difficult for young people to get work. True, there has been an increase in the birth rate recently, but that is principally because immigrant families are younger. In the past, a high birth rate was to be encouraged because a rising population meant more people would be available to work, and a bigger economy meant greater wealth for all; countries whose populations stagnate and decline are countries with no future. However, there must come a point at which this is no longer true. At the current rate of increase, the UK's population in just 20 years will be over 70 million and yet, until relatively recently, it was predicted to stabilise at under 60 million. Indeed, the planning of governments since the 1970s has all been predicated upon a static population. In other words, we were not prepared for this, either logistically or culturally. Partly this was because the last government and its cheerleaders simply refused to acknowledge what was going on, especially with regards to mass immigration. Their delusion continues. Yesterday, the IPPR, a Left-leaning think tank, observed in response to the latest census figures that the rate of population increase today is half what it was between 1801 and 1910, as if that somehow made it acceptable. It also contested the idea that we are a "crowded island" because "as for population density, we only come out top if we exclude Wales." Unlike in times past, we have a rapidly increasing and ageing population. This will place greater pressure on public services at the very time we have run out of the money to pay for them. In recent years, it has become abundantly clear that these circumstances have not been planned for, an act of gross negligence. Yet more immigration to rejuvenate the population would not help in the long run either, because new settlers grow old as well. What these demographic trends show above all is the absolute requirement that we do things differently in future. More public services will need to be privatised, the burdens on taxpayers reduced and people encouraged to look after themselves and make provision for their own future. Yet the reforms needed to bring this about are often resisted by the very people who promoted the population boom that has made them unavoidable.