Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Official Report 306KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Census (Scotland) Order 2010 (Draft)

The answer is that they will have no special status in the next census. The purpose of the italicisation and the affirmative resolution procedure that the italicisation attracts is to mark not those questions that are new but those questions that are not strictly about demographics—in other words, the size and nature of the population—but relate more to socioeconomic information about the population. That distinction is made in the Census Act 1920, which we still use to guide our drafting of such orders.

Obviously, when we come to the next census—assuming, of course, that we have one—we will look very carefully at what happened in 2011 and will learn from that process, the way in which questions were answered and the questions’ continued relevance to society 10 years on. I repeat, though, that Parliament’s approval of the italicised bits gives them no special significance.

Some of the questions about ethnic and national identity that we debated and amended at the previous stage will be subject to the same process the next time around, regardless of whether they are in the first or second draft of changes made at this stage.

I was pleased to hear you say in your introduction that you will recommend that the whole process be looked at next time. Some of the issues about ethnic groupings that I raised could have been taken care of in such an approach, and raising them at the 11th hour was not the best way of dealing with them. I take on board the points that you made and am pleased that you have spoken to the organisations and tried to reach the best accommodation possible. However, as I say, the issues could have been dealt with better if the process had been widened.

I will let Duncan Macniven answer that question. Again, I will learn in the process.

It is a highly subjective and personal matter that is down to the individual concerned. You are evoking in my head the vision of Dave Allen, who famously said, “May your god go with you.” I leave the matter open.

The minister is correct. In the question, we are aiming not to establish membership—whether someone is a card-carrying member—but affiliation, as discrimination on the ground of religion is not restricted to people who are card-carrying members. The general public—those who may discriminate against people—are not aware of whether people are members of a body. We are satisfied that in 2001, when we asked the same question, affiliation was established fine. The question caused no significant grief that came to our attention for those who answered it.

I have a final question about individual question 13. At the end there is a box for

“Another religion or body, please write in”.

Committee members have received correspondence from representatives of paganism. One of my friends is a pagan. I spoke to him about the issue, and he was happy with the wording of the draft census, despite the representations that we have received. What correspondence or discussions have you had with representatives of paganism?

As there are no further questions, we move to formal consideration of the motion in the minister’s name.

Motion moved,

That the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommends to the Parliament that the Census (Scotland) Order 2010 to the extent that it relates to the following particulars in Schedule 2—

(a) item 1;

(b) in item 2, the words “and, as the case may be, where there are 5 or fewer persons in the household, the relationship of each of the previous persons mentioned in the return and where there are 6 or more persons in the household, the relationship of the sixth and subsequent persons to the two previously mentioned persons in the return”;

(c) item 7;

(d) in item 8, the words “and, if not born in the United Kingdom, month and year of most recent arrival to live in the United Kingdom”;

(e) items 9,10,12,14,17,18,19,20;

(f) in item 21, the words “on a Government sponsored training scheme;”

(g) items 22,27,28,30,31,33,34;

and items 1,2,3 and 4 of Schedule 3 to the Order, be approved.—[Jim Mather.]

I am slightly surprised to hear that the questionnaire has to be at the printers by the end of May, given that the census is still some months off. However, I will let that lie.

I am very pleased that my point about central heating powered by renewables has been taken on board, but I remain unconvinced that the purpose of the language questions has been satisfactorily explained and that anything valid will come out of them. However, beyond making those comments, I do not intend to push the point any further.

That is correct. With my Scottish Government colleague Rob Wishart, we will consider whether that amended question set should be used for the census, and also for other Government and societal surveys between now and the census

I guarantee that that will happen. We are also keen to make sure that, when we finish the process, we will have a package that successor committees and members of Parliament will be able to take on to continue the process that we have evolved.

I do not know that my memory goes back to 1801, or 1861, when the office of the registrar general for Scotland took over the running of the census. However, I suspect that what Mr McMillan says is correct. Ten years is a long time in the life of any elected legislature, and the details of the way in which things are handled change from time to time. As the minister said, there was obviously a big change between the 1991 census and the 2001 census, and changes have occurred between 2001 and now. We see clearly how the process could be improved for next time, and I will ensure that that is written up and remembered for the future.

No member has indicated that they wish to make changes to the italicised parts of the draft order.

Motion agreed to.

That concludes this item of business. I suspend the meeting for a few moments to allow the witnesses for our next item to be brought in.

11:01 Meeting suspended.

11:04 On resuming—

Item 2 is a return to the draft Census (Scotland) Order 2010, which has been revised. I welcome back the minister and his team. Since they appeared before the committee in March, they have made changes to the draft order. I ask the minister to introduce briefly his supporting cast and to outline the changes.

I am here with Peter Scrimgeour and Duncan Macniven, who are from the General Register Office for Scotland.

I welcome the chance to discuss again the draft order, which gives the go-ahead for the next census. We had a full discussion at the committee’s meeting on 10 March, when we agreed that the process could be improved. In particular, it would be better if a lead committee were identified well in advance and could take a continuing interest in the development of the census proposals over several years. I would be happy to see such a recommendation from the committee.

In a wider context, we had an excellent and thorough discussion on 10 March. Several important points were made about the census-taking process and about the question set. I concluded that it would be best to withdraw the draft order, to continue the process of trying to achieve a consensual outcome. The draft order that we are discussing is the result of that process.

The draft order contains several changes from the version that we discussed on 10 March. I described the changes in detail in my letter of 18 March to the convener, but I will summarise them now. The most important point is that the revised draft omits the household income question. It was clear to me that, despite the question’s usefulness, it could not command members’ support, because of its perceived intrusiveness. The pros and cons have been well aired and we have left scope for our successors to debate the matter further in due course.

In response to the important points that Wendy Alexander made, we changed the health conditions question to make perfectly clear how the categories apply to people with autism or Asperger’s syndrome.

Although it does not actually involve any changes to the draft order before the committee, we can commit to changing the census form to take on board the convener’s point about central heating powered by renewables by adding a write-in box.

10:45

I also carefully reconsidered, at Marilyn Livingstone’s behest, the way in which the ethnic group question treats Arabs and, at the convener’s behest, the language questions. Although I understand the points that have been made, I have been forced to conclude that we should not change those questions, and my letter of 18 March and the attached schedule explain the reasons why.

I hope that, in the changes to the draft order that I made following our discussion on 10 March and the changes that I made originally, we have been shown to be properly responsive to members’ views on this important subject. Indeed, I believe that our collaboration has improved a questionnaire that was based on the registrar general’s careful consultation and research.

That said, I also believe that there is a limit to the further value that we can realistically add, and delaying beyond this point will, in fact, result in real penalties. The registrar general is contractually required to provide a final questionnaire to the printers in the middle of May, and missing that deadline would increase the census’s cost and might well result in the window of opportunity to hold the census on 27 March 2011 being lost.

I hope, therefore, that the committee agrees to recommend that Parliament approve the draft order.

I welcome the minister’s general approach to the process and in particular his decision to withdraw the household income question. He is right that the general view did not favour such an approach. However, the committee will broadly share his ambition to obtain more helpful information about wealth and poverty. Perhaps before the next process gets under way there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter further.

I have a technical question that might have wider implications. With regard to the motion that we are to debate, which is to recommend that the Parliament approve the italicised areas in the draft order, will our approval of those areas mean that they will be moved into a different category in 10 years’ time? In other words, do the areas that will be added for the first time to the 2011 census through the draft order’s approval become the status quo and therefore no longer liable to amendment under affirmative procedure in 10 years’ time?

I will let Duncan Macniven answer that question, because I think that you and I both will learn something from his response.

I thank the minister and the registrar general for their listening ear, albeit that the issue arose at the 11th hour. Given the process that has been imposed on us, we have ended up with a real step forward in relation to the autism issue. The minister is aware that there are different views, although we have made progress. However, one of the reasons why the issue loomed so large was because there is an outstanding commitment dating back to 2001 to sample accurately those in the population who are affected by the disorder. In the interests of joined-up government, which I know is close to the minister’s heart, I hope that he will convey to his health colleagues that, notwithstanding the progress that has been made, development disorder is wider than autism and there is a need for measurement in that area. He should also advise them to pursue the 2001 commitment in parallel with the important progress that will be made in the 2011 census.

This has been a learning exercise. The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2009 was about getting people in the room and getting the debate going to accelerate a process. We could do more of that with the next census.

I have a point of clarification about the process. Given what has been said this morning and what was said at the previous meeting, am I right in thinking that every time a census has been taken, even before the Scottish Parliament was re-established, the process has been different?

Given the relatively recent re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament, that might well be true. I will ask Duncan Macniven to answer that because I am sure he has more depth of knowledge about it than I have.

Did the Westminster Parliament go through the same process between the 1991 census and the 2001 census? Was the matter referred to a particular committee for examination towards the end of the process, before the Parliament signed off the order?

I do not know that the minister will learn much, as I am not absolutely sure of the answer. I would not like the committee to take my view as authoritative, but I understand that such matters are considered in committee and, as necessary, in plenary, because of the affirmative component of the order, to which Mr Macdonald alluded.

My next question relates to individual question 13 of the census, on religion and religious denomination. I did not raise the issue during the 10 March meeting, when we took evidence from you, but it struck me when I looked at the paperwork again over the weekend. If someone attends a church but is not a member of that body—I am thinking of the Church of Scotland, in particular—will they have difficulty answering the question?

Probably the same correspondence and discussions that members have had. We have received representations from a wide spectrum of people and have drawn on many different sources to reach what we believe is a balanced decision that meets the needs of the widest possible group and gives the pagans an opportunity to designate their affiliation.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance.

I ask members to remit to the clerks and me the task of producing the committee’s factual report on the matter. Do members agree that it should include some recommendations about future process? I suggest that we ask that the Government advise the Parliament at an early stage when preparation of the 2021 census is under way, so that the Parliament can refer the matter to a lead committee. I also suggest that we include the equivalent of a stage 1 process, which would involve an early draft being placed before the Parliament so that the lead committee could take proper evidence from interested bodies, and that the matter be referred to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for formal consideration.

Members indicated agreement.