Radical
Statistics
Taking the politics out of the Census?
Jennifer Boag
Introduction
Following the debates which have taken place in the press, parliament and among Census users in the run up to and during the taking of the 2001 Census, this is perhaps an appropriate time to consider whether the Census as it currently exists, and its planning, should be reviewed from the point of view of the involvement of politicians in the process. Political pressures largely brought about the late changes that were made to the Census content during 2000. It is also obvious that the Census has a particular place within the public psyche that other government statistical exercises do not have, which will influence this debate.
This paper will argue that this is the time to begin a debate on the role of the UK parliaments in the Census and whether a new Census Act is required to change this. It will also consider whether changes need to be made in the consultation process on the Census since it is obvious that some groups with strong views feel they are not being consulted.
How the Census is currently governed
The Census in England, Wales and Scotland is governed by the 1920 Census Act which was passed to allow Censuses to be taken not more often than every five years without the need for separate legislation each time one was held. Northern Ireland Censuses are covered by the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 which is broadly in line with the rest of the UK. However, there remains a requirement for a Census Order to be laid before parliament prescribing the date of the Census, persons for whom and by whom Census returns are to be made and setting out the questions to be asked. There is thus the decennial 'Census debate' in parliament and since the Census is a devolved matter, this time also in the Scottish Parliament.
This means that once every ten years, politicians become involved in the planning for the Census. Obviously, the Census is not top of every politician's political agenda - compared to issues such as health, education, and taxes it is of minor importance. Nevertheless, once a decade speeches are made, pressure is brought to bear and changes are made to the Census by politicians who have generally not been involved in the planning and consultation which has gone on for several years before.
The Census appears to be virtually unique among the output of National Statistics in being subject to political scrutiny at a stage when politicians are in a position to influence the data collection. This would seem to be contrary to the principles which the government has been seeking to address in the last few years in ensuring that statistics are free from political interference and which has led to the setting up of the Statistics Commission.
In the Forward to the Green Paper 'Statistics: A Matter of Trust', Helen Liddell (then the Economic Secretary to the Treasury) began:
Public confidence in official statistics has for far too long been clouded by concerns about their integrity.
Further on, the Green Paper states:
Reports by a number of organisations ....... have raised concerns about the quality of statistics and their degree of freedom from political interference (para 1.2).
The Green Paper also sets out one of the government's goals, which is that:
The production and presentation of official statistics needs to be free from political interference, and to be seen as such, so that the professional objectivity and impartiality of the statistics is assured (para 1.5).
The italics are in the Green Paper.
Following the consultations on the Green Paper, the government published its White Paper 'Building Trust in Statistics'. Having considered the responses to the consultation, the government concluded that the creation of an independent Statistics Commission was the best way to ensure the freedom of national statistics from political interference. The new framework was equally designed to ensure that the professional responsibility for national statistics, through the National Statistician, was clearly separate from the responsibilities of Ministers.
While this suggests that government interference in statistical matters is to be prevented, it does not specifically mention interference from parliament. How far that distinction needs to be made could be debated.
The current method of dealing with the Census under the 1920 Act appears to be contrary to these principles. The changes made to the 2001 Census were made due to pressure brought by politicians who had been lobbied by interest groups. This resulted in the government making changes to the content of the Census questionnaires at a relatively late stage. This was after all the consultations with users had taken place.
Consultations
Consultation on the 2001 Census started even before the results of the 1991 Census were available with the Census Policy Evaluation and Reappraisal review. The arguments at that time were overwhelmingly in favour of a further Census in 2001 so the Census Offices (OPCS - now National Statistics), the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA)) started the planning process in consultation with major Census users.
Much of the consultation process is carried out by the Advisory Groups. There are eight of these covering:
- central government departments
- local authorities
- health authorities
- the academic community
- the private sector
- other business areas in National Statistics
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
In addition, regular editions of 'Census News' are published keeping interested users up to date with progress on output from the last Census and planning for the next. A number of roadshows have been held at crucial stages of the consultation process at venues throughout the UK to which all those interested have been invited. More recently, information has been available on the Census Offices websites.
Much of the discussion at the meetings of the Advisory Groups is technical and detailed. This undoubtedly limits the number of people outside the Census Offices who become closely involved in the Census consultations. Relatively few people have the skills, time or indeed inclination, to spend on close scrutiny of the vast numbers of papers which have been produced over the last ten years.
The Census Offices have made considerable efforts to consult users throughout the planning of the 2001 Census. The amount of consultation and the willingness of the Census Offices to take on board the comments of the main users has undoubtedly improved over time.
It impossible to please all consultees within the constraints of a national Census. There are particular constraints in relation to the questions that can be asked in a Census - length, acceptability, comprehensibility etc. Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister for Scotland explained this quite well in his speech to the Scottish Parliament opening the Census debate on 16th February 2000:
Our proposals for Census topics have been drawn up after thorough and extensive consultation with users over a lengthy period that started back in 1996. There are three criteria for selecting topics: whether they meet the priority needs of Census users in Scotland, particularly central government, local government and the health service; whether acceptable and workable questions on priority topics can be devised; and whether the Census, or an alternative method, is the best method of collecting the information required. Also, we have tried to have regard to the overall length of the Census form, taking into account the implications for users response and cost.
By the time of the Census debates in the various parliaments, a number of issues had arisen in the public domain which had previously been discussed during the consultation process, and it was thought had been resolved. These related mainly to the questions on religion and ethnicity.
On religion, the Census White Paper published in March 1999 'The 2001 Census of Population', proposed (para 64) that a question on religion would be asked in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because there had not been as strong a business case made for such a question in Scotland, it was not proposed to ask such a question there. The justification for this new question in England and Wales was that it would supplement the information on ethnicity by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those from the Indian sub-continent.
On ethnicity, a more complex question was to be asked in England and Wales than in the 1991 Census. In Scotland, it was proposed to leave the question little changed from the 1991 Census and an ethnicity question was to be introduced for the first time in Northern Ireland, along the lines of the Scottish question.
Legal advice was that a religion question could not be asked in England, Wales or Scotland without an amendment to the 1920 Census Act. This was put in train, although it was introduced as Bill in the House of Lords rather than the Commons. This Bill was itself amended to make the question on religion voluntary. In other words, no one would be prosecuted for failing to answer that particular question.
Whatever one's views on the merits of a question on religion in the Census, it is unsatisfactory that the inclusion of a question on such a topic required an amendment to the Census Act.
The position in Scotland on religion and ethnicity causes most concern over political interference in the Census. Following the publication of the White Paper, a number of groups began campaigning for the inclusion of a question on religion in Scotland and for an ethnicity question more like the one proposed for England and Wales.
They lobbied the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee was persuaded by their arguments to propose an amendment to the Census Order when it was debated in February 2000 to include not only a question on current religion, but also a question on religion of up bringing, similar to the questions in Northern Ireland.
The Scottish Ministers agreed to accept their amendments and to introduce an amendment to the Census Act that would allow a religion question to be asked in Scotland. They also proposed further consultations on the format of the ethnicity question that led to a radically different question from the simple one proposed in the White Paper.
These concessions were obviously made for political reasons when the Ministers realised that they were likely to be defeated on the Census Order if they did not concede to the representations of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Indeed, within the parliament itself, MSPs saw this as a victory not only on this particular issue, but also as the first occasion on which the new Committee system in the parliament had persuaded Ministers to change their minds.
One could argue about the merits of the changes that were made by the politicians. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not there was political interference in the Census planning process and whether that is a matter for concern.
The Scottish Ministers were certainly originally proposing to introduce a Census Order which was put forward by GROS as a result of all the previous consultations, so it cannot be argued that the government was trying to influence the statistics. Nevertheless, it was politicians (of all four parties in Scotland) who were able to get changes made.
In this case it would be difficult to argue that there was anything sinister in changes made to the Census which could be construed as political manipulation. The issue is rather whether or not the current process, in principle, allows political interference which could be seen to affect the integrity of the statistics.
In Wales there was also vocal disagreement with the Census questions when it was realised that the ethnicity question in Wales included only a tick box for British. While Scotland had 'Scottish' as a category, there was no category for 'Welsh' in Wales. This led to debates in both the Westminster parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Many of those who had been involved in the Census consultations from the beginning were unhappy that politicians were able to make late changes to the Census. This undoubtedly brings into question the time and effort which went into Census planning both in the Census Offices and elsewhere.
A further issue which it raises is that the late involvement of people with equal opportunities agendas suggests that there is a need to find additional ways of consulting in order to involve those who are not part of the existing network, at a time most appropriate for them.
There is also an issue for the Census Offices about how much weight to put on these vocal views in comparison to those of major users.
The Census holds a unique place among national, or indeed any, surveys. Because it has to be answered by everyone, it has an especial role in society. There is considerable publicity in the run up to Census day which generates debate in the press and elsewhere among a much wider community than those who are normally involved in the consultations.
The failure of the Census helpline in 2001 because of excessive demand is just one indication of the interest shown by the public. The continued debate on the religion and ethnicity questions is a further indication.
It has been argued above that the current requirement for parliamentary approval for the Census Order can be seen as political interference with statistics. However, it could be argued on the contrary that the importance of the Census is such that parliamentary scrutiny protects the public and holds the Census Offices accountable to the parliaments at a stage when changes can still be made.
The new statistics regime makes this an opportune time to begin a debate on the Census Act and whether it should be changed to conform or whether there are wider issues of accountability which would indicate the continuation of the current position.
Conclusion
This paper is intended to raise issues for debate rather than draw conclusions. The main issue is whether or not it remains appropriate for politicians to be involved in the Census by requiring the Census Order to be approved by the parliaments. On the one hand this could be seen as political interference, on the other the importance of the Census to the public means it could be seen as the Census Offices being accountable to the parliaments.
Is there a need for a new Census Act which would not require parliamentary approval for the Census content and which would eliminate the need for amendments to the Act to allow questions on topics such as religion to be asked?
The second issue is how the Census Offices can consult as widely as possible so that everyone who has an interest in the Census can feel they have been properly consulted. New ways of consulting will need to be sought. Effective consultation would eliminate changes being made due to political pressure.
Notes
The websites for the Census Offices are as follows:
National Statistics: www.statistics.gov.uk
General Register Office for Scotland: www.gro-scotland.gov.uk
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency: www.nisra.gov.uk
References
Office for National Statistics (1998) Statistics: A Matter of Trust, Cm 3882, London: The Stationery Office.
Office for National Statistics (1999) Building Trust in Statistics, Cm 4412, London: The Stationery Office
The Scottish Parliament (2000) Official Report, Vol.4(11), Col. 1074.
The Treasury (1999) The 2001 Census of Population, Cm 4253, London: The Stationery Office.
Jennifer Boag
Research and Information Unit
Falkirk Council
Municipal Buildings
Falkirk, FK1 5RS
Scotland
Tel: (01324) 506010
E-mail: jenny.boag@falkirk.gov.uk
NB: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Falkirk Council.
