---

Census (England and Wales) Order 2009

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us a clear exposition of the importance of the census as an indicator of factual information that is utterly vital to determining, among other things, the distribution of public expenditure. I also suggest that this is quite an important debate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, it is the last public opportunity for consideration of these issues before the process goes into its concluding stages. He raised many points which I shall largely take as put so that the Minister can focus on them, but I have a number of questions and points of my own. The consultation to which the Minister referred has been extensive, which is entirely appropriate, and I am glad that it has been conducted in the way that it has. It would be of interest to know whether the stakeholders to whom she referred, particularly the institutional stakeholders, had any comments to make about the costs. I was slightly surprised to read in the Explanatory Notes that no impact assessment had been produced for the order since no impact on the private or voluntary sector was foreseen. I am surprised not least because of the responsibility of those in communal establishments for providing information or for ensuring that information is provided. That includes hospitals, care homes and prisons—although they are not private institutions. There are cost implications for those complying with it. I accept that, for individuals, half an hour would probably be a sufficient allocation of time to reply even to the enlarged questionnaire. The second broad policy question which I would like to raise—I am not aware that it has been raised in earlier debates—concerns the frequency with which the census is held in this country. There has been a 10-year census for a long time, I think, since it was introduced in 1801. However, I have noticed that a substantial number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Eire and New Zealand, conduct a census every five years. I do not know what extra cost that involves, or indeed whether some of the costs in the 10-year census might be obviated by having one more frequently, but it is fair to say that we are living in a very rapidly changing society. To some extent, that is reflected in the enlargement of the questionnaire to four pages from three—a 25 per cent increase—in the 10-year census. If we are making judgments about the statistics which it will yield, perhaps we should think about whether a census ought to be conducted within a shorter timeframe in future, so that the responses of Government to many of the issues to which the Minister referred could be more immediate and less "after the event". The cost, which has been extensively referred to, is not inconsiderable. The Minister referred to the cost benefit, but £482 million is a very substantial sum. I would be grateful if the Minister would say a little more about the extent to which competition has been, and can yet be, involved in conducting the necessary preparations for this census. The competitiveness of contractual offers should be borne in mind, as well as the robustness of the testing of the possible conduct of the individual parts of the exercise. The census has produced a highly valued series of statistics historically, and this country has a good record on that which is generally recognised. It would not be proper to imply that I am seeking in some way to cut corners. Nevertheless, with very substantial contracts of this kind, it would be helpful to know about the process—who conducted it and how it was scrutinised—not necessarily because changes will be made on this occasion, but perhaps if they have been made in the process which has run in the 10 years since the last census. As far as the range of questions is concerned, I have no great problem with the enlargement of the number of questions in principle because, as I have said, there have been considerable changes in the mobility of our society, in the ownership of second homes, and in the movements into and out of this country. The only question about that latter point is whether the personal information being sought in respect of visitors is really required or whether it is unduly intrusive. I have no doubt that the Minister will have a view about that. Many of the questions seem a little arbitrary, but no doubt they were thrown up by the consultations. For example, it is interesting that a question about the ownership of cars is there but not one about the ownership of IT equipment, which has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years and has become a principal mode of communication. How has this come about? How were these decisions taken? I am sure that there is a natural and proper reluctance to enlarge the questions, partly because the bigger they are the less incentive there is to make a complete return, or indeed to make a return at all. There are some other new questions—for example, in respect of ethnicity. There is the category of "Arab" but no category of "Arab/White" or any kind of mixture. That, again, seems slightly arbitrary. Furthermore, as this country becomes more and more ethnically integrated, it raises a question about what it is proper to declare. I have a son-in-law who is half Bengali and half Irish; he lives in this country and will be expected to respond to the census. I am not entirely sure how he should answer these questions. When it comes to the point, although they are a little young to do it this time around, I wonder what my grandchildren will feel is an appropriate answer. These questions seem to be becoming a little sensitive. Although I understand the motivation to take account of the cultural backgrounds and interests of those sectors, we should reflect on this issue from now on because the younger generation is considerably more mixed ethnically than my generation and the one that followed it. The question about a person’s workplace address is open to subjective questioning. Individuals will have to assess what is their central workplace. Some people do a number of different jobs; some people may never attend the headquarters of the business to which they are attached; some people, such as contracted plumbers, move around all the time; others, of course, can conduct a great deal of their work from home but also work elsewhere. I am not sure how revelatory that question is or could be. The principal questions that I have in mind are, admittedly, of a general and broad nature. However, they raise issues about how the census is compiled. The Minister has helpfully indicated broad categories of people who were consulted, but some of the issues about national identity and whether you speak English very well, well, not very well or badly are entirely subjective. Some people who have spoken nothing but English all their lives might be regarded by others as speaking English very badly, but not necessarily by themselves. Although I can see the point, the answers to these questions will not necessarily be entirely convincing. There has to be a certain awareness of the breadth of the questions and a certain amount of self perception is required to answer them in statistically reliable ways. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks.