Equal Opportunities Committee, 01 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 1, 2000

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Census (Scotland) Order 2000

I will update members on the Census (Scotland) Order 2000. At the previous meeting, I was asked to come up with an amendment to the order that would take on board some of the concerns that members had expressed. It has been a complicated matter. We asked Jim Wallace to give evidence to the committee, but he could not attend today.

On Tuesday 8 February at 1.30 in committee room 1, we will meet to hear evidence from Jim Wallace, John Randall, the Registrar General, and David Orr, the head of the census branch. The meeting will probably last for about an hour. I know that it is being called at short notice and that it will not be held at the usual committee time, but that is the only opportunity for the committee to meet Jim Wallace, from whom it is important that we take evidence on this.

Members should have received a copy of two draft amendments, which I could lodge on behalf of the committee, and also a Scottish Executive memorandum on the topics for the 2001 census.

I was disappointed that we only received the memorandum this morning. I see from the date on the memorandum that that was not because the clerks did not sent it to us speedily but because of when it was drafted. It was obvious a fortnight ago that we would discuss this crucial issue at this meeting. We did not spring it on anybody. We cannot absorb information on this question if we receive it at the beginning of a meeting.

The issue goes back further than our meeting a fortnight ago. The Equal Opportunities Committee's interest has been obvious since the clerk wrote to the Scottish Executive before Christmas to say that we wanted this matter to be referred to us.

I suggest that we agree on an amendment, which can be lodged after this meeting. We will then have a week to consider the memorandum before we hear the evidence of Jim Wallace, the Registrar General and the head of the census branch next week. If the committee is satisfied with that evidence, it would not be a problem for the committee to withdraw the amendment.

I agree. Unfortunately, if we wait until we have heard the evidence before we formulate an amendment, we will be ruled out of time, because the debate will take place within 24 hours of next week's meeting.

We have discussed this matter, and members have copies of the options, whose admissibility is being checked by the chamber office. We should discuss the options now. Option 1 is flexible and option 2 is more specific.

I prefer option 2, because I do not like amendments that just say that they do not want something to go through. We should explain exactly what we want. Option 2 says exactly why we want this issue to be addressed.

Perhaps there is a third option. A question on religion would involve a more complex and lengthy procedure, as a new bill would be required. However, issues of ethnic group and language could be included in an amendment to be debated next week. I am not suggesting that we exclude a question on religion, but that we need to take a different route.

The question on religion would require an amendment to the Census Act 1920, whereas the other questions would not, although the procedure will be quite complicated for those as well. The committee probably wants the amendment to cover every question. When we agree that, it will be up to the Executive to deal with the different questions. However, it would be better to deal with all the questions in one amendment. The way in which the matter is subsequently dealt with could be different, but all the questions will be debated next week anyway.

We might lodge an amendment in two parts, perhaps, acknowledging that the question on religion would have to be introduced when the Census Act 1920 had been amended, but that the others could be included on the laying of a new census order.

That is what option 2 says.

Not really.

Option 2 makes explicit what would be necessary to include a question on religion. Do you have a suggestion for another amendment?

We could subdivide it, to recognise that the question on religion needs to go through a slightly different procedure to be included than is necessary for questions on ethnic grouping and language.

Option 2 does that. It says that a bill would be required to introduce a question on religion, and goes on to say what the revised draft order would include. We could change the wording, if you think that it should be more specific, but the distinction is made in the amendment.

Yes.

If the question on religion was stopping the amendment from being supported, the other two questions would not be supported either. However, if they were dealt with in a separate amendment, that amendment might be supported.

There is nothing to prevent the lodging of amendments on specific questions. However, the question on religion has been raised with the committee. I believe that it is one of the most important questions to include, although other people have different priorities. I think that the committee's amendment should include all the questions, but that does not prevent other members lodging separate amendments that could be supported if that amendment was not supported.

It is important that the amendment reflects a package that the Equal Opportunities Committee wants to present in addressing the weaknesses of the census bill. We have an interest in gathering data that will address the needs of groups that we want to be better served than they are. We recognise that some questions can be addressed easily, and if the Executive wants to address them it can do so now. Other issues are more complex, and would involve the amendment of legislation, but nothing is insuperable if we are determined.

We are engaged in a political debate about the purpose of the census, and we should resist the temptation to get bogged down in the technicalities of any amendment. The Equal Opportunities Committee wants to recognise weaknesses in data in particular areas, and it believes that the amendment covers information that would be crucial to developing an equal opportunities policy. The amendment is designed to do a political job, in taking on that political debate. The Executive can manage the technicalities and the drafting later. It would be helpful to lodge an amendment that pulled the whole thing together, and that reflected the committee's view, which is what the convener is doing on our behalf.

I want to acknowledge the concerns expressed by Elaine Smith and Irene McGugan that the meaning of such an amendment might be lost in debate. However, I totally accept Johann's comments. It is right and proper that all the committee's concerns are collated in one amendment. That will send a clear message from the committee that what is before us is not adequate and that it is up to the Executive not only to reconsider the legislation, but to introduce mechanisms that allow the concerns of the committee and people outwith it to be addressed.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not know whether other members have received representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authority about the inclusion of a question on incomes in the census. That organisation has pointed out that councils are the main users of census information and that, as such information will be used for the next 13 years for anti-poverty strategies, community planning and service development, it feels that a question on incomes would be useful. The Executive's memorandum also raises that issue. I do not know whether this committee or another should lodge an amendment about incomes.

I was not convinced by the memorandum's arguments against including the question on income. There is a strong argument for collecting information that will not be gathered in any other way. As arguments about sensitivity and the information that people are willing to provide can be made about every question in the census, it would be a lost opportunity if a question on income were not included. Whether that would be done best within the package that we have talked about is debatable. The Equal Opportunities Committee could lodge an amendment saying that the committee wants equal opportunities included in the census.

I am not as sure as Shona is about that issue. We all know that income is a good indicator of discrimination and that once certain groups have been identified within economic groups, we can examine how ethnicity, for example, impacts on people's economic standing in the community. However, that might be an issue for the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. Our amendments are based on concerns that have been raised with us by other organisations. If we start to expand our scope, where do we stop?

Someone else might be lodging an amendment on income—I can find out before next Tuesday.

Is it agreed that I will lodge option 2, if the chamber desk says that it is admissible?

I agree with that.

The end of question 2 mentions a language that is spoken at home. I would very much like the committee to consider the possibility of including the Scots language in that, for very much the same reasons that the Commission for Racial Equality outlined last week. Scots is a language that is recognised by the European Bureau for Lesser Used and Minority Languages but it is not yet recognised in that way in Scotland. We would be giving Scotland's indigenous languages a level of equality.

I am sure that the committee would agree with that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Does everybody know that the final date for lodging such an amendment is Tuesday 8 February?

I will lodge that as soon as the committee is finished, and if we are satisfied with Jim Wallace's answers next week we have the option of withdrawing it.