§ 2.57 p.m.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have a great many data about the Census and about the background to this Order, but I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a very detailed account. The rather unusual form of the Order arises from the provisions of the Census Act, 1920. This Act provides that the date of the Census (which on this occasion will be Sunday, April 24, 1966), the persons by whom and about whom returns are to be made, and the information to be collected, must be prescribed by Order in Council, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in the ordinary way.
The Act also allows additional information, beyond that specified in the Act, to be collected, but these additional items have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. All the items in the Order requiring Affirmative Resolution are in Schedule 2 to the Order. There are nine of them, though some are sub-divided, and they are set out in italics in Articles 2, 7, 9, 10 and 11. I think it will be found that they are all non-controversial and of obvious practical utility in our social and economic life. There is a further Parliamentary 950 stage in the process. In due course, regulations have to be laid covering precise details of, the Census questions, including the actual forms of return, and these are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
The 1966 Census will be novel in two particulars: it will be quinquennial, instead of decennial, and it will be a 10 per cent. sample Census, instead of the usual complete enumeration. These proposals were announced to your Lordships over a year ago, on December 16, 1963, by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and there was some discussion of them at the time, though they were agreed to be generally acceptable. The case for a quinquennial Census, in view of the rapid changes in population distribution, employment and housing, is overwhelming. The case for a sample Census is, I think, equally strong. It more than halves the cost, from £5½million (which is what the full Census would cost next year) to £2¼million. It enables the main results to be obtained much more quickly—within two years instead of well over four years—and the degree of accuracy of the results is such that reliable figures will be available for the country as a whole, and for all the larger areas where the main problems of social and economic development are likely to arise.
The 10 per cent. sample method was, in fact, applied in the 1961 Census for questions about occupation, education and migration, and many valuable lessons about sampling were learnt. A pre-test for the new sampling procedures to be used for the present Census—which differ considerably from those employed in 1961—was carried out last April and proved quite satisfactory. There will, however, be six relatively small areas in Scotland, with a total population of less than 250,000, where the population will be counted in full. These are areas where special economic studies are in progress, and they are listed in Schedule 3. With two exceptions, they are areas of depopulation, where the sampling method would yield too low figures. The two exceptions are Fort William and the town of Livingston. Unless your Lordships wish it, I do not propose to discuss details of the sampling method, nor shall I discuss the more routine items of information covered by the Order.
951 The nine special items for which an Affirmative Resolution are required are as follows. The first covers those persons who are not related to the head of the household investigated—that is, for example, whether a person in a hotel is a guest or a member of the staff. These are all italicised in the Schedule. The second seeks to measure the extent of migration within the last five years. In 1961, the person's address one year before the Census was asked for. This time the same question will be repeated, but his or her address five years before will also be asked for. This may be a little difficult for some people to remember and to answer precisely, but they will have time to think things over, and to talk things over, because the forms are normally delivered on Sunday and collected a week later. Moreover, this is precisely the time when the previous Census returns were filled in.
The third item clears up a problem which arose in the 1961 Census about the number of rooms occupied. Then, only a kitchen used for meals counted as a room. This time sculleries with cooking facilities will be counted, but kitchens used for meals will be counted separately. The Census in this country is not merely a population Census; it is also, by tradition, a housing Census, and the next three items, which are virtually the same as in 1961, ask about house tenure and ownership, and cooking and sanitary facilities.
We come now to Article 9(e), an entirely new item of the Census, and one with vital importance in transport and town planning policy. There will be questions about car ownership and the use of cars made available by employers, and about where people keep their cars at night. Questions about employment have been asked since the very beginning of Census-taking in 1801. Most of them are covered by the main Census Act, but one, in Article 10(c)(iv), an entirely new one, inquires about the journey to work —obviously a matter of growing importance.
Another new employment question, in Article 10(d) (which is not, however, subject to Affirmative Resolution), deals with people having more than one job. The final item requiring Affirmative 952 Resolution is Article 11. This deals with higher education. There was a similar, more limited, question in the 1961 Census covering technological and scientific qualifications. This is now being extended to cover all higher educational qualifications. I do not think I need argue the importance of these new items in detail, but I shall be happy to do so if your Lordships wish.
Your Lordships may remember that on the last occasion most of the discussion concerned questions relating to fertility. There are none of these special fertility questions in this quinquennial Census. The reason is that the necessary information obtained in 1961 can be supplemented by the annual returns of the Registrar General, so there is no need to include these questions this time.
There are only two more points that I ought to mention. First, the formidable list of items in the Schedule will be translated into as simple a style and language as is possible; and some of these simplified questions have already been tested on the public to make sure that they can be properly understood and properly answered. Many possible questions to which Government Departments would have liked answers have already been excluded simply because some people could not understand them, or had only a vague idea of the answers. The second point is this: the Census is compulsory, but it is also confidential. Worthwhile results can come only from a willing public, so, as with previous Censuses, everything will be explained as fully as possible to the public in advance: why the questions are asked; how the sample is drawn, and how confidentiality is achieved.
Those who wish to do so—lodgers or guests in a house—may hand their forms direct to the enumerator or Census officer. Census returns are used for statistical purposes only, and there are heavy penalties for improper disclosure of information by anyone employed in making the Census. The Registrar General does not give recognisable details of individual citizens to other departments or, indeed, to anyone else. There is, then, no reason why any citizen should be unwilling to co-operate fully in the vital work of Census taking. In 1961, fewer than one in 75,000 householders refused to co-operate. This is clear 953 evidence that people realise that the Census is something that is entirely necessary, and something in which they should play their full part. Training of the field staff will be more extensive than ever before, and more emphasis will be laid on the need to win the co-operation of the people sampled. I beg to move.
§
Moved, that the following parts of the Second Schedule to the Draft Census Order 1965 (laid before the House on the 4th March) be approved:—
In Article 2, the words "or other person by whom the return is made, or position in establishment";
Article 7;
In Article 9(a), the words "and if there is a kitchen or scullery, whether it is used for meals";
Article 9(b), (c), (d) and (e);
Article 10(c)(iv);
Article 11.—(Lord Taylor.)
§ 3.8 p.m.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the brevity and lucidity with which he has explained the purpose of his Motion. For my part, I certainly agree that it was not necessary for him to enlighten us with the considerable amount of background information on the matter which he said he had available. I should also like to express my gratitude to him for explaining to us why the House has to signify its approval of comparatively minor Amendments to the Order where, so far as the Order itself is concerned, silence is sufficient.
I certainly have no objections to voice to any of these Amendments to the second Schedule, but I wonder whether there is really much point in asking whether kitchens and sculleries are used for meals. I daresay that a good many of the answers to that question will be, "Yes", and a good many will be "No", but I suspect also that there will be a good many answers which say, "Sometimes" or, "For some meals. "Furthermore, this particular question was asked in almost exactly the same form in the 1961 Census. Then the use of kitchens for meals was the criterion by which to decide whether or not the kitchen was to be counted as one of the rooms in the house. But we have been told—and I think it is readily admitted—that in 954 fact the answers to that question in 1961 were not particularly satisfactory. As I understand it, in this next Census a kitchen or scullery will be counted as a room in the house if it is used for cooking; and for the purpose of making that decision it will not matter whether or not the kitchen or scullery is ever used for eating purposes.
But the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has explained to us that the question about meals is still going to be asked, for the purpose (the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, did not explain this, but his honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health did, in another place) of making comparisons with the 1961 answers to the similar question. As I have just told your Lordships, it is admitted that the answers to that question in 1961 were not satisfactory, and I cannot see any particular reason for believing that next time the answers to that question will be any more satisfactory than they were in 1961. This then is the point. What is the use of comparing two sets of unsatisfactory information? Perhaps the noble Lord can later on explain what is to me an apparently illogical proposal.
I certainly hope that the taking of this first ever quinquennial Census will, in the event, turn out to have been a worthwhile operation. I gave considerable thought to this in the past when I had a good deal to do with the General Register Office; but I am not entirely convinced that it will so turn out. I know that many Government Departments are very keen to get the information, and I am quite certain that it is worth trying to obtain it, though I was interested to hear from the noble Lord that many questions which they wanted to ask will not be asked because people would not understand them. I have the feeling that nothing, short of a biennial Census would fully serve the purposes of many of the Departments that want the questions asked, and that, of course, would be open to many objections, of which one would be uncertainty about the tolerance of the public.
It is evident from the proceedings in another place of March 18 that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Mrs. Hart, has not any doubts about this. I think it is in order for me to do so and I should like to quote some 955 of her observations on this point. Mrs. Hart said:
… it seems to me that the public reaction is much more that of slight annoyance not to be the one in ten selected".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 708 (No. 81) col. 1637, March 18, 1965.]She went on:From a slightly different point of view, one is not trying to justify something one is imposing upon them, so one is encouraged in the whole process of educating the public in the use of inquiries of this kind and if one has an unsatisfied demand, one can use the emotion that unsatisfied demand has created quite confidently to go forward with further inquiries, if one wishes to do so, which is a very satisfactory position to be in."—[col. 1638.]And right at the end of her speech the honourable Lady said:I think that the public likes learning about itself and enjoys the opportunity to give information … "—[col. 1642.]It may well be that there are those who enjoy the opportunity of giving information about themselves, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and Her Majesty's Government, will take it from me that there are also a great many who do not enjoy the opportunity. I should have thought it was beyond dispute that many people cordially dislike having to fill in long and complicated forms.I also hope that the Government will not accede to a further suggestion that was made in the same debate in another place, by the honourable Member for King's Lynn, who was so concerned (and I shall not do more than paraphrase him) about the insufficiency of information about fertility in this country that he suggested that married couples should be asked to what extent the actual size of their families coincided with their intentions, what measures they had taken to try to achieve their intentions, and to what extent their efforts had been successful. The only other comment I would make about this suggestion is that I do not share the view of the honourable Member for King's Lynn that the vast majority of people would be only too willing to give that sort of information.
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord one question relating to the confidential nature of the answers which people give? He explained to us very carefully the importance which the Government attach 956 to preserving the confidential nature. In the debate in another place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Mr. Loughlin, on this point of the confidential nature said this:
… the census returns are treated at all stages as absolutely and completely confidential."—[col. 1625].Shortly after that, in the course of his speech he said:There are penalties for people refusing to make returns or wilfully making false returns"—[col. 1625.]This is my question: how does "X," a member of the staff of the Registrar General, know whether or not "Y" has made a false return unless "X" consults a third person, "Z," who is presumably a neighbour of "Y" and whom he expects to know the true answers. If "X" does consult "Z," he is committing a breach of confidence. One cannot have it both ways. Is then the penalty for wilfully making false returns just a bit of bluff? If not, what is it? I recognise, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, can make a "tu quoque" retort to me about this. A11 I can say in advance is that until I read what Mr. Loughlin said in another place the point had not previously occurred to me. My Lords, I think that those are all the observations I need make.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I shall do my best to answer the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I thank him for the clear way he has presented his points. May I start at the rear end of his speech with the question of confidentiality? Refusal to make returns is, as the noble Lord says, a perfectly simple thing and it arises in a very small number of cases, usually with people who are cranks. Some of these people have been prosecuted in the past and almost always the prosecution has succeeded. It is rather sad when this happens. It is inevitable, but such people form a minute percentage of the total.
With regard to a person making a wilfully false return, it may be apparent on examining the form that there is something peculiar about it, that it just does not look right and does not ring true. Then it is perfectly right and proper for the Census enumerator to return to the house to see whether there is something wrong, but I would not suggest for one moment that he should go snooping around asking "Z" if what "X" has 957 said is correct. I think that would be most improper and, indeed, that it would be quite unnecesary.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Am I not right in thinking that the householder or anyone who has to complete a form is entitled to hand the form in a sealed envelope to the enumerator, so that the enumerator does not know the contents of it?
§ LORD TAYLORIt is where somebody else is making a return so that the householder does not know the contents of it that confidentiality in that respect comes in. The form is checked for proper filling in when it reaches the office from which the enumerator is working. There is a further check; there is a follow-up survey which takes place a little later. This is primarily directed to seeing that the sample itself is satisfactory, not so much to seeing that false returns are detected. I would emphasise that experience over the years has been that people do not in fact falsify returns; they do take it seriously. If it were to become widely believed that false returns were made and there was nothing wrong in that, the whole of the Census procedure would be brought to a state of farce. In fact, people do realise its value. In addition, all households which are going to be sampled will receive in advance a circular setting out quite shortly what is required of them and why they have been picked; I think this will help to ensure their cooperation, and I do not believe there will be any trouble.
With regard to the noble Lord's remarks about my honourable friend Mrs. Hart and the attitude of people who are not selected, I think Mrs. Hart was speaking about social surveys in general. May I say that I entirely agree with her that where social surveys take place it is the experience that people frequently ask why they have not been selected to give their opinion on this or that or to give information about this or that. But with regard to a Census only time can show; we can only see what happens and whether people resent being selected or not being selected. I do not think there will be any trouble; I think it will go perfectly smoothly, as I take it the noble Lord thought when he himself proposed this sample Census.
His third point is in relation to kitchens and sculleries. He is quite right. 958 We want to know how many rooms there are in a house. Does a kitchen or scullery count? There are two possible criteria for counting the kitchen or scullery as a room: is it used for meals or is it used for cooking? In the 1961 Census the criterion used was: is the room used for meals'? This criterion is not satisfactory because it may leave out rooms which are used for cooking, and this produces an entirely false picture. We must ask both questions this time so as to get a bridge in order that the results of the two Censuses are comparable. I think the noble Lord is making, a mountain out of a molehill here. It is a perfectly fair question. It would give an inaccurate picture if we excluded kitchens and sculleries which are not used for meals.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I am sorry to come back to this. May I call to the noble Lord's attention what his honourable friend said in this connection in another place when talking about what happened in 1961. It is in column 1622. He said:
… the information obtained was not altogether satisfactory because the decision was often governed by family habit rather than the size of the kitchen. It is proposed to overcome this problem in 1966 by counting a kitchen or scullery as a room if it is used for cooking, but comparison with the 1961 statistics will still be necessary and this can be obtained only by finding out whether kitchens are used for meals.Faced with this admitted fact, that the information obtained from this question in 1961 was unsatisfactory, why does the noble Lord think the information obtained in 1966 will be any more satisfactory? What is the point of trying to compare two groups of unsatisfactory information?
§ LORD TAYLORThe information was unsatisfactory last time, as I understand it, because the two questions were not asked and because in fact some rooms which were perfectly adequate as rooms were excluded because they were not used for meals. Therefore, the count of rooms was false; this time the count of rooms will not be false and the comparison will, I believe, be perfectly satisfactory. I have done my best to answer the noble Lord's points. I will not say I have satisfied him completely. But I think this Census will go off perfectly satisfactorily, and I hope 959 your Lordships will give the Order due approval.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend a point about sculleries and kitchens? It seems to me quite an amazing state of affairs. Do the people who compile these questions know that in the congested areas of the country many women are compelled to cook on the landing, and in many slum dwellings the landing is better lighted, more comfortable, more airy, than the scullery, which in the old days, of course, may have been built simply for washing in a big copper? Would my noble friend tell me, therefore, whether, if the cooking accommodation on the landing is perhaps better than in the scullery, the landing will be scheduled as a room in precisely the way that the little scullery will be scheduled'? If they do not do this, there will be a feeling of discrimination.
There is another point—this is an amazing thing. Apparently it will now be implied that the woman who has been using a scullery for her cooking—which may mean only that there is room for a gas stove and a few saucepans—has been rather wasteful with her accommodation, and, indeed, that there is another room in her house which has not been used. I would ask my noble friend to consider these matters. Perhaps this Census will not give the true information, the honest information and the comfortable information which the noble Lord is seeking.
§ LORD MACANDREWMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, a question about cost. If the work has been reduced to one-tenth and the cost by only a half, surely there is something wrong.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, the cost is not reduced proportionately with the size of the sample. The computer costs much the same to acquire and operate; the staff is not reduced proportionately. Indeed, this was dealt with fully by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he had to give slightly different figures from those which I gave. One wishes that it were possible to reduce automatically, but it is not so: it does not work out that way. The overheads, as it were, of running a Census remain disproportionate to the size of the sample.
960 With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, a landing certainly will not count as a room even if it is used for cooking. It is not a room, and the object is, of course, to assess the number of rooms. I agree with her that there are a number of poor houses where cooking takes place on the landing. But the basic problem is to enumerate the number of rooms, and not to enumerate, the place where cooking is done if not in a room.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in that case should not the noble Lord define what is a room—that it is not a landing, partitioned or curtained off —and say that a little place like a dog kennel, with a stone floor and holding a gas stove, is not a room fit for human habitation?
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill
§ LORD NEWTONIt is making a kitchen out of a landing.
§ LORD TAYLORIt is making a kitchen out of a landing. If the place is partitioned off, then it may conceivably be a room. But if it is not partitioned off, in my view, without taking expert advice, I would say that it should not counted as a room.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, would the noble Lord say whether, if people have their meals in a large hall in a large house, and look upon it as their dining room, that is or is not a room?
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I am giving this answer without seeking advice, but I should say that it certainly is a room if it is used for dining.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I do not want to bully the noble Lord or the Government any further. But, remembering the last Census, I think that people are a little puzzled about the term "rooms". I know of a Polish castle in which there was such an enormous room, with alcoves, on the ground floor that it made at least nine different rooms without any separation by a door or anything else. That is one extreme. I know of no house in this country which would be treated like that. On the other hand, I have known of a house which was a 961 portion of a high tower, and room after room was reached only by a winding staircase, with no amenities at all. It could not possibly be used for living in; it could be used only for refugee shelter. People have been quite puzzled whether to include this in the Census return or not, as for practical purposes the rooms were useless as such.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I think the fact that a room is regarded as useless as a room is not an excuse for not calling it a room; and, thank goodness! the Census will not be carried out in Poland.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.