Equal Opportunities Committee, 18 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Official Report 150KB pdf

---

Census (Scotland) Order 2000

The second item is the Census (Scotland) Order 2000. Mick Conboy from the Commission for Racial Equality will give evidence to the committee on the matter. I understand that the clerk has circulated a paper from the Commission for Racial Equality. Everyone should also have a copy of the draft Scottish statutory instrument.

I thank the committee for inviting me to give the response of the Commission for Racial Equality to the Census (Scotland) Order 2000.

Our proposals in the paper that was circulated to members centre on three related elements: ethnicity, language and religion. We believe that the data produced from those questions would greatly assist planning at a central and local level to identify need, provide appropriate services and assess the effectiveness of those services. The introduction of the questions would be helpful in implementing the Government's commitment to mainstreaming equality that was illustrated recently by the checklist that was launched by the First Minister. It would also be helpful to the Executive's equality strategy that was launched yesterday by the Deputy Minister for Communities.

We must consider legal commitments. Domestically, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 are relevant. Internationally, the introduction of the European convention on human rights will trigger a review of the need for legislation on religious discrimination. International Labour Organisation convention 111, concerning discrimination in employment and occupation, also covers religion, as do the directives that emanate from article 6a of the Amsterdam treaty.

The questions that are used in the census need to offer ways of opening up our understanding of differentials and inequalities rather than affirming the user interests that have already been perceived. Challenging exclusion must include uncovering issues that agencies do not fully understand. The inclusion of those three areas provides a major platform for the development of a national strategy on monitoring that would assist in addressing the historic lack of data available in Scotland.

We want the ethnic classifications used in the census to be expanded to allow for the fact of evolving identities and emerging issues. The changes suggested to the ethnic origin categories, which were accepted for the census in England and Wales, would improve the response rate from ethnic minority communities.

Similar arguments have been made for the inclusion of the question on language as for the inclusion of a question on Gaelic-speaking people in Scotland, namely, that that information will provide data on change over time and will assist in planning bilingual education provision. It will also inform the national strategy on interpreting and translating that we mentioned to the committee on a previous occasion.

In our view, the question on religion would supplement that on ethnic origin and would be of particular benefit to Government and public services such as education, health care and social work. I stress that that is not a way of gauging religious activity; rather, it underlines the essential function of the census as a planning tool. All these questions centre on essentially the same arguments as those for the introduction of a question on ethnic origin, namely, to identify and address differentiated need and effectively to plan and assess performance.

Finally, I would like to touch on one or two of the reasons for not including some of these questions. The inclusion of a question on religion was not identified as a priority by user groups. I remind the committee that, prior to 1991, there was a degree of opposition to the introduction of an ethnic origin question. The Commission for Racial Equality and racial equality councils may not qualify for definition as users of census information. However, we were consulted by the General Register Office for Scotland and we recommended the use of these questions. Other census users are principally service providers. We suggest asking questions on the demand for services that are provided by those users, and cite one instance of a major service provider—City of Glasgow Council—coming out in support of the question on religion.

It has been suggested that there would be an adverse reaction to the introduction of a question on religion. The arguments against introducing a question on ethnic origin were similar in nature pre-1991. However, since 1991, history has shown the benefits, particularly to ethnic minority groups, of gathering such data. It is now commonly accepted that ethnic monitoring is a prerequisite for providing effective services. Considerable testing was carried out during the run-up to the introduction of the white paper, and no adverse reaction was found to the question on religion.

We have established that the census in 1991 cost £134.5 million to conduct, and we ask the committee whether it is convinced by the arguments over the additional costs that would be involved in asking further questions. In the draft amendment bill that was brought before the House of Lords recently, to amend the Census Act 1920 there were no financial implications for introducing the question on religion for England and Wales. I am not sure whether that has already been taken account of in the calculations. However, it begs the question of the overall cost of the lack of appropriate services for ethnic minority communities in areas such as health and education.

There is also an implicit acceptance that the size of the ethnic minority population in Scotland is not sufficient to warrant an additional expense on this account. We stress the fact that the census is supposed to be looking forward as well as taking a snapshot on the census night. Religion is likely to increase in importance as an indicator over the next decade, as it has over the previous decade.

Thanks very much. Do members have any questions?

I may have missed something. Why is religion likely to increase in importance as an indicator?

On the basis that the ethnic minority population is likely to increase over the next 10 years. The ethnic minority population in Scotland, as in the UK as a whole, is younger, and the fruits of that indicator will be seen over the next 10 years.

There is potential for the data that we want on religion to be collected from other sources, from surveys and so on. Do you think that that information would be as valuable, or would you prefer it to come directly from the census?

The main problem with surveys is their extent: any survey has limitations on its range and scope. We have highlighted that in our response. I refer you again to the House of Lords amendment to the 1920 census, which gives a pretty good indication of why the census is regarded as the most authoritative source of information. I cite that in support of the argument that a survey would not give the scope and range of information that the census would.

Would the cost of other surveys be prohibitive? There must be a cost implication for the census as well. Is there not an economic argument against further surveys?

The census has the mechanisms in place already. Further questions in the census would be added on; there would be no need to change the mechanisms through which the information would be delivered. However, a survey on ethnicity, language and religion would start from scratch, and the additional costs would have to be weighed against any costs that would be incurred by introducing an additional question in the census.

I apologise for being late. You may have covered this point before I came in.

The arguments against including this question centre on the fact that the business case has not been made. This committee has already discussed whether, if someone was not sensitive to the needs of a particular black or ethnic minority community, they could be expected to make the business case. If they do not make the business case, that is then used as an argument.

It has also been argued that the consultation process was flawed, and did not enable groups to contribute early enough, to make the kinds of points that you have made. Can you comment on why the consultation did not develop these arguments early enough for them to be taken on board?

There are several points there. The first point deals with the direct impact on ethnic minority communities as identified through ethnic monitoring data. Several service organisations do not regard racial equality as an issue; their planning is already devoid of a racial equality element. When approaching an organisation on what might be regarded as a colour-blind issue such as the census, it is likely that a racial equality element will be overlooked. That is the argument for introducing a mainstreaming approach to equality issues for planning that has previously been regarded as having nothing to do with racial equality. The intention is to make planners and policy makers think about equality issues when they deal with finance planning and so on.

In terms of the general response from service users, it is likely that those questions were simply overlooked. In the case of Glasgow, there was further consultation with both internal and external groups, to identify views. In terms of the wider consultation, the CRE was in discussion with the GRO about a year ago. The CRE and the racial equality councils felt that we had made out the case, but we do not know whether, at that time, the GRO had made contact with other ethnic minority organisations.

Could I ask people to speak right into the microphone, as some people at the top of the table are having difficulty hearing what is being said?

On the exclusion of the question we are discussing, is there anything else that we can do before the census is done and dusted? I was involved in the relevant council committee in Glasgow and we felt that it was important to make our feelings known. We hoped that we had changed the view of those who organise the census, but that does not seem to have happened. Is there anything else that we can do to influence the decision?

I understand that the Scottish Parliament is the last port of call in terms of amending the draft order, and that it is out of the hands of individual authorities such as Glasgow City Council. It is down to the Equal Opportunities Committee and to the Parliament to make the final decisions.

We will discuss our approach after we have taken evidence.

It is probably worth while reminding the committee about a related issue. The only other contentious element around the draft census order as it stands is that it does not mention a question on the Scots language. Many of Mick Conboy's arguments are relevant to that question—detail would be collated that would be of assistance in planning the provision of education and other services. The issue is also one of recognition, which is an important element. I ask the committee to bear that in mind as we move towards making recommendations and conclusions, as it will be quite difficult to determine how best to progress this matter.

I am interested in the document and in the classification of people who are required to comply with the census regulations. There is no provision for the homeless—that is, those people who live on the street—to establish how many there are. We keep hearing from the media and reading in the press about the thousands who sleep on our streets. How are we to assess that group of people? Do the regulations propose to record those individuals?

While I understand your question, the CRE has no statutory locus in relation to the homeless as a group. There are issues about ethnic minority communities and hidden homelessness, such as overcrowding, but they make up a sub-group of the wider group of the homeless. I do not know whether the issue of homelessness is picked up elsewhere in the census.

The other day, I received a letter from a travelling person who said that they wished to be considered as being of an ethnic minority origin. Does the CRE have many dealings with travelling people? How are they covered by the census?

I understand that a separate census is carried out via the secretary of state's advisory committee on travelling people in Scotland. A further issue is whether the travelling community as a whole would define themselves as having an ethnic minority background. The issue is not clear-cut one way or the other within the community itself.

Are travelling people represented on the CRE?

We are in dialogue with traveller-based organisations. The most recent contact was a workshop organised by the secretary of state's committee. As you may know, the committee is producing an end-of-term report, as it winds down. In the spring, there will be a conference on the way forward for travelling communities in Scotland, at which Dharmendra Kanani, the head of the CRE in Scotland, will speak. We are in reasonably regular contact with travelling groups.

While I believe that we should press for various changes, in the scale of things do you feel as strongly about the extra sub-divisions in the ethnic monitoring categories as you do about the question on religion? Do you think that we should push one rather than the other?

While Irene McGugan mentioned the Scots language, I have a question about language generally. I may be wrong, but I do not think that there is a question about ethnic minority languages. If there is not such a question, do you think that there should be?

We should bear in mind the fact that these categories will be in place for the next 10 or 11 years or more. A large number of young Scots in particular would not necessarily see themselves as being principally of Pakistani origin, for example. There is a growing sense of dual identity, if you like—young people who claim Scottish identity in addition to identifying with their parents' background.

As I said earlier, the categories have been introduced in England and Wales to assist people on the completion of census monitoring forms, rather than leaving them to complete the "Other" category, which will lead to the loss of specific information under that general heading. The idea is to unpick that information, so that those who plan services have much better data on which to base their work.

It is important to view the matter over 10 years and to reflect the growing sense of dual identity, which links into the question of religion. Those who organise the census in England and Wales acknowledge that an awful lot of people in ethnic minority communities would see themselves as better defined with an additional element that relates to their religion or cultural background. I would not want to choose which of the three questions to push.

On the question of language, service providers regularly ask the CRE: "What are the main languages spoken in Scotland? How many people are we talking about? How do we target translated materials at those individuals?" Those questions might have been answered in the previous census, which forms the basis of the argument for including such questions now. In order to provide a better service, providers need to know the characteristics of their audience.

You may have mentioned that one of the problems in including this question is that the law would have to be changed. Are you aware of that problem? In what way would the law require to be changed for the question to be asked?

I believe that the introduction of the question on religion for England and Wales led to the tabling of an amendment to the Census Act 1920—the amendment was laid before the House of Lords on 19 December. All that is says—it is a tiny, insignificant amendment—is, "We will introduce this line". There is a statement to the effect that the question on religion will be introduced in England and Wales, if time is found in the House of Lords to pass the amendment.

Would the responsibility for the legislation for Scotland lie with the Scottish Parliament? If so, it would be for us to make our own time available.

That is one area on which we are not clear. It is a devolved matter, but the Census Act 1920 pre-dates devolution. I am not sure what the position would be in terms of the Scottish Parliament amending the act. That point needs to be clarified.

It would be worth doing that. The Minister for Justice said during questions last week that any change might require primary legislation, which would mean that we would generate the legislation. You are saying that that primary legislation would not be extensive and would not take up a lot of parliamentary time—it would therefore not be an insurmountable hurdle.

We can go into that when Martin Verity explains the procedures.

I thank Mick Conboy for coming along to give evidence. We are going to discuss this issue now, so you are welcome to stay, although we will understand if you have to rush off somewhere else.

I will be happy to stay.

Because the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, rather than the Parliament, was going to deal with this issue, I asked Martin Verity to tell the bureau that we wanted it to be referred to us as well. However, that is not going to happen, as the order is now going to be debated in the full Parliament. I think that the date of that will be decided today—it may be 27 January. I have asked Martin to find out what procedures we can use to have any influence, given that we cannot consider this fully as a committee and take evidence from a range of organisations. He will outline what is happening and we can discuss what we will do as a committee or as individuals.

My understanding is that the census order is unique in two respects. First, it combines affirmative procedure with negative procedure. Secondly, I understand that the affirmative part can be amended.

The order has been laid and it is up to the bureau to determine where it will go next. As the convener said, we understand that it will be laid before the full Parliament rather than before any specific committee. I believe that that will be on 27 January, but I am not certain.

The Executive will lodge a motion and members who wish to amend the census order would do so by lodging an amendment to the Executive motion. This is a complex procedure; the chamber office clerks are working on guidance for members on how these amendments should be lodged and worded. My understanding is that that guidance will be available to members when the Executive motion is known. It is for the committee to decide how to respond to the request from the CRE and other organisations and to establish its view on the census order. If the committee desires to lodge an amendment when the Executive motion is published, we will provide advice, in consultation with the chamber office clerks, on how to do so.

Are there any questions on the technicalities, before we discuss amendments?

Would an amendment be lodged in an individual's name or in the name of the committee?

It would have to be lodged in the name of an individual MSP. All motions and amendments are lodged in the name of an individual MSP. That would not prevent the MSP from making it clear that he or she was moving it on behalf of the committee, if that was what the committee wanted.

You said that that the order was partly affirmative and partly negative. Does that matter? As we are having a debate, do we need to know which part is which?

Because of the complexity of the situation, my advice would be to have the debate before we consider the technicalities of the amendment.

The committee structure is useful, especially in this instance, as it allows us to discuss and explore the issues. In a formal debate, someone is either for something or against it, which can make it difficult to engage the minister in the way in which we could have done had we been able to call him to this committee. We might have teased out why some people, who one would have expected to be supportive of these questions, had taken an alternative view. We would have wanted to ask the appropriate people to consider some of these issues. Some matters do not lend themselves to formal debate as well as others. We should play to our strengths as a committee.

Regardless of the questions that the order omits, including on religion, ethnic origin, language and so on, I am disappointed that it uses language that I thought became outdated a long time ago—it refers to everybody as "he". We should make representations that the language should be that of the world to which the rest of us moved a long time ago. It is not difficult to use inclusive language that recognises that there are men and women. The view that the masculine term covers everybody is outdated. We should state that the language should be changed.

It is good that we are going to debate this order in the chamber. That acknowledges the importance of these issues. As we have heard, it is possible to amend only those provisions that fall within affirmative procedures. What that includes has still has not been made clear to us, but we hope that language will fall into that category. However, that still would not enable us to address the religious questions and amend the Census Act 1920.

Does that mean that, even if there was a strong feeling in Parliament that those questions should be included, we would have no mechanism through which we could debate the matter? Is it the case that we can debate the language issue but not the other issues?

We will have to investigate the procedures; I am not sure what they are. If we decide as a committee the issues about which we are concerned, we can then consider the procedures. As Martin Verity said, the clerks are preparing guidance. We should determine the feelings of the committee and find a way in which to express them in an amendment, or we should request that these issues be debated in Parliament.

On the basis of what we have heard today, some people have clearly been working on this question for a long time. I would support using the CRE recommendations—particularly the last two pages—as a framework. There are three groups. First, we would support the sub-divisions that it suggests, although members may want to make small changes to those. Secondly, we would support the inclusion of a question on religion and, thirdly, we would support a question on language spoken in the home. If we accept that position in principle, we can then investigate the procedures by which we can advance our objectives.

It is regrettable that, although we have reached 17 January and may have a debate on the draft census order next week or the week after, the committee is still not clear about the procedures for seeking to amend the order.

We need to have another meeting before the debate takes place in the chamber. To make the committee's views clear, we should consider producing a committee report for distribution to all MSPs, based on the CRE's submission.

My concern is that the selection of amendments to the Executive motion will be in the hands of the Presiding Officer. Those amendments have to be lodged by individual members, but we cannot debate 129 amendments, so somebody, at some point, will have to make a judgment on which amendments are debated. If the committee takes a collective view, it should be able to make that view quite clear. One mechanism for doing that would be for the committee to produce a report and ensure that all 129 MSPs receive a copy before the debate in the chamber.

The problem with that suggestion is the time scale. The matter has been taken out of our hands. Until last Thursday, it was intended that it would be dealt with through the committee system, which would have given us time to take evidence and to produce a report. I told the business manager in writing some time ago, and repeated my point last week, that I wanted the matter to be referred to the committee.

The procedures will have to be looked at for future cases, but at the moment we will have to work within the time scale. I suspect that we will not be able to produce reports for all MSPs by 27 January. We need to find out how our views can be put in Parliament by a individual member on behalf of the committee.

As a member who has had four amendments refused by the Presiding Officer, I am acutely aware that the matter is in his hands. [Interruption.] Johann Lamont has just suggested to me that, in that case, I should not be the one to lodge the committee's amendment; she is probably right.

If we could reach agreement today along the lines of the case presented to us by the CRE, we could lodge an amendment in the convener's name. We could produce a statement, rather than a full report, which could be e-mailed, or photocopied and distributed, to all MSPs. When the convener speaks in the debate, she could make it clear that she was speaking on behalf of the committee; that would add a lot of weight to the points that she made. Under those circumstances, I think that it would be impossible for the Presiding Officer to refuse to accept the amendment.

I am not so sure about that last point.

I would have expected to lodge the amendment on behalf of the committee, but I did not want to be presumptuous. If Tommy is suggesting that I do so, and everyone is happy with the suggestion, that is fine by me.

You can give me the fiver later.

Only a fiver?

I come cheap.

All that we can do today is to discuss and agree on amendments in principle; we will have to find out the procedure later. I would be interested to know whether the Census Act 1920 has been amended for England and Wales. Does the act still cover Scotland?

Tricia Marwick suggested getting everyone together again before 27 January. That may be difficult to arrange, but if it is possible and members agree to meet again, I would be happy to organise that meeting and could keep in touch with members by e-mail. If we decide on the general principles today, Martin Verity and I can work on those arrangements. Do members want me to go ahead with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to underline my earlier point about the role of the committees. The debate in the chamber will be useful, but perhaps we should ask—through the convener and the conveners committee—for some awareness of issues that lend themselves to the committee structure. The census order is a classic example of such an issue, because a formal debate will close down much of the discussion. That is nobody's fault, but a committee discussion could have been more exploratory. I am concerned that we are being driven by procedure instead of ensuring that our procedures facilitate useful debate. We have to find some way of releasing ourselves from procedures. In another place, people are often hampered by procedures. We should try to deal with this problem early.

It was intended initially that the census order would go to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but the plan changed because of that committee's timetable. Other committees—of which we are one—could have examined the order, but no attempt was made to seek another course for putting it through the committee system. That sets a bad precedent. We do not want to encourage a system in which one committee's timetable completely alters the way in which legislation passes through Parliament.

It was decided that the census order would go to the full Parliament because the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is so busy dealing with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. I have made representations on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I am happy to contact the bureau again on that point.

I mentioned the Scots language earlier. If amendments on language are eligible, an amendment to include Scots in the census will undoubtedly be lodged, but how do members feel about separating one language from others? If amendments are lodged to include separate questions for each language, that will generate a large number of amendments. That might divide the committee's feeling about trying to include everything that has been omitted so far. What are people's thoughts on that?

Does question 8 have to name specific languages, or could it just ask, "Which language or languages do you speak, read, write or understand?"

The question would have to include a list of languages, plus a space in which people could include any languages not listed. I think that it would be possible to frame the question in that way.

Is everyone happy for Shona Robison, Martin Verity and I to get together to try to sort this out? We could discuss today any amendments that members want the committee to support in principle.

Does anyone want to comment on that? Malcolm, you said that you wanted the committee to support the CRE's recommendations.

I made a general point about that.

It will be difficult to discuss the detailed wording of amendments today. We have tried to have a discussion around the principles. Now we need to go away and put some meat on the bones, then find a mechanism for checking with members that they agree with what we have drafted. My preference would be to get everybody physically back together, after ideas have been e-mailed out. Things get difficult if people are e-mailing backwards and forwards. After e-mailing suggestions, we should have a brief meeting to decide which ones we want to pursue.

I wonder whether the morning of Wednesday 26 January would be suitable for that. I do not know which other committees members sit on, but we could ask the CRE to draft an amendment, which we would discuss on the Wednesday. The meeting would have to be in the morning, because the amendment would have to be submitted to the chamber office by 4.30 pm on that day.

Why not meet on Tuesday? The reporters groups tend to meet on Tuesday morning anyway.

Because the topic is so specific, I did not want to cut across the meetings of other reporters groups that were discussing issues that they regarded as important.

The only problem is that some people have committee meetings on Wednesday morning.

There are committee meetings on both Tuesday and Wednesday.

We will set up a meeting on either Tuesday or Wednesday, after we have found out what best suits members. We need to have at least the bare bones of what people feel would be useful, so that we can consider the practicalities of including those issues in an amendment. There may be issues other than those that the CRE has raised this morning. Like Mick Conboy, I suspect that there is not a huge cost implication in including extra questions.

I support Johann Lamont's point about language and would like you to take that on board, convener.

We will get in touch over the next few days to try to organise another meeting before 27 January.

Unfortunately, the Scottish Refugee Council is unable to give evidence today. We do not have an alternative date yet, but we will try to organise one as soon as possible, as I realise that members are keen to hear evidence from the council.