Ruairí Quinn
Question:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to include a question in the 2002 census to provide information on the ethnic origins of those living here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21446/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Census of Population.
Alan M. Dukes
Question:2 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if he will ensure that, to facilitate the development of policies to counter racism and discrimination against black and ethnic minorities here, a question on ethnic background is included in each future census of population; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23512/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Government decided on the questions to be included on the 2001 census form in May 2000. This decision followed widespread consultation by the Central Statistic Office in early 1999 supplemented by a pilot test carried out in September 1999. The inclusion of a question on ethnicity was considered to be a sensitive issue and the controversy it might cause could have had a detrimental effect on census response rates. Furthermore, the question being proposed was formulated at a late stage and consequently had not been pilot tested. On this basis, the Government decided against inclusion of the question. The Government decided instead to include a specific question on membership of the Irish Traveller community and a question on nationality. These additional questions, taken in conjunction with questions on country of birth, religion and country of last previous residence will provide comprehensive information on minority sub-populations.
Because of the foot and mouth outbreak the Government decided in March of this year to postpone the census from 29 April 2001, to 28 April 2002. The same questionnaire will be used in 2002. The CSO intends to resume working with the relevant representative groups on a question in relation to ethnicity in the lead up to the 2006 census.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and express deep regret that the Government is refusing to avail of necessary scientific data. Does he accept there is a pattern here? More than ten years ago when the CSO was asked to do a census on the number of people who were divorced or separated, it refused to do so on the grounds that it was not Government policy. Later this month the Government will launch its campaign to combat racism. How can we have a proper campaign if we do not know the precise numbers? What is the real reason for not including this on the census form? The Minister of State has a direct responsibility for this area and I am not talking about the operation of the CSO, I am talking about Government policy. Does the Minister of State want to find out the extent of the change in the nature and composition of this society? There is no more scientific way of doing that than by conducting a census. It is not too late for the Government to change its mind and have a suitable question inserted on the census form. I am disappointed that the Minister of State cannot see a way to address this issue.
I certainly want to address it and it will be addressed. It is really a question of when it can be addressed satisfactorily. It was decided to include a question on ethnicity. That was discussed with the consultative body that was established which drew from 16 groups around the country, including the public service. It was also discussed with the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism and the Equality Authority. They agreed to a revised wording of ethnicity offering the choices "white", "black", "Chinese" and so on. When this commenced in the UK they got into serious difficulties because they offended a large number of groups who felt they were not included or did not like the descriptions of their background included on the form.
When the Government examined this, a number of Departments raised issues which had not been addressed by the proposed question. For example descriptions such as Romany travellers, Asians, blacks from the Caribbean or blacks from Africa were not included. Rather than give offence, it was felt it would be better to simply make a start. Question six on the form asks the respondent's nationality and offers the responses of "Irish" or "other nationality". Question 12 asks the respondent's religion and offers options such as "Roman Catholic", "Presbyterian", "Islam" and so on. There are also questions about last place of residence and place of birth. The view was that it would be premature to go down the road Deputy Quinn is suggesting. I agree with him, however, that we should seek to gather that information.
The alternative would have been to put in an open-ended question. The contracts have been signed for the census next year and the forms are ready. The open-ended question would allow respondents to describe their ethnicity, but the CSO tells me that gives rise to logistical problems. The whole basis of the census is to list something that covers the majority and then insert a box for "others". An open-ended box for "others" would cause enormous logistical problems. I want to get to the same place as Deputy Quinn. I am advised by the CSO that it would be premature to do it now because there is no agreement on how it should be done. The original idea was to insert a box for "black", but it was felt some people might be offended by that or feel it did not cover their ethnicity.
It raised a lot of questions in the UK, which I think have been finally resolved. A large number of groups were offended in the UK. We believe we should continue to work with these various groups.
I thank the Minister of State for his long and apologetic reply. I do not accept, however, that he wants what I want. I know the Department of Finance. I know it refused to take a census on the number of people with disabilities for fear of the cost implications. I know there is no census on the numbers of carers. If the facts are not known policies cannot be produced. We have a problem with racism, we have a delayed programme—
The Deputy should ask a question.
I am asking the Minister of State if he agrees with me. He made a long supplementary reply. We have a growing problem. We have dealt with that in having to deal with our people in Britain. Does the Minister of State agree it is paradoxical that the Irish Government argued with our British colleagues to include a description in their census that would enable the Irish in Britain to be measured in their census? Which is more important, the prospect of giving offence to a small group of people or getting the facts as to the changing nature of our society? Does the Minister of State agree that, on balance, the prospect of getting the facts is a better option for policy makers than the possibility of causing offence in private to those who read the forms? Other than not being prepared to measure the facts, one has to conclude the Minister of State has given into an assumption of offence being given rather than the reality of facts being gathered. If one good thing has come out of the foot and mouth outbreak, it is that it is not too late to change the form. The cost of doing so could be substantial, but nothing like the £150 million the Government has already spent on consultancy services in the past four and a half years.
My response was not apologetic, it was explanatory. When it comes to hiring consultants, a previous Government had many programme managers—
At a fraction of the cost.
—and I am sure if one was to put up a costed list for the respective Governments of programme managers versus consultants, my guess is that the final figures would be very close.
Is that a challenge? I will take the Minister of State up on it.
To return to the question, the Department of Finance is not calling the shots on this, although there are cost implications of several million pounds. I am advised by the Central Statistics Office. I accept the Deputy's point that the Government takes the decision on whether to take that advice. It has chosen to do to so on this occasion. Apart from the policy points, which I have already explained, I have been advised there is very little room for manoeuvre at an operational level. The contracts were placed after an open tender procedure, the hardware and software are in place and the work is in hand.
In the policy area, the Government is of the view that it would be premature to proceed with this now. Instead, respondents will be asked their nationality, from which we can glean as much information as possible. We will continue to work with the various groups to enable us to deal with the matter properly in 2006.
What does the Government mean when it states the measure would be premature? Does it mean it might measure the numbers of people of different races in this country, but not at the present time? What does premature mean, if not that? Why can the Government not do it now?
There is no point in explaining the matter because the Deputy does not want to listen to me. I have explained the reason we cannot do it now and the meaning of "premature". It means we have not concluded the discussions with the various groups involved to the extent that the Government is satisfied that offence would not be taken. The reason we cannot do it now, as I have explained, is that there are operational problems. I am aware the Deputy does not accept those reasons, but it is my job to explain them.
I accept the explanation regarding the open-ended box.
It is a matter for the Deputy whether he accepts that explanation. That is the operational level. At a policy level, it is the Government's judgment that the new question on nationality, combined with the previous questions on religion, place of birth and country of residence prior to taking up residence in Ireland, will give us a substantial picture on this issue. We can move later to getting a full measurement of ethnicity.
The census does not have to take place for five months. Could the Minister of State not pilot test this questionnaire in the intervening period? Would it not be quite easy for him to pick up the telephone and call his counterpart in the United Kingdom to ask what system has been agreed with all the ethnic groups in that country? Is it not hypocritical for the Government to make a case to the British Government that the Irish should be included as an ethnic group on the British census when we are not prepared to introduce a similar measure? Would it not require just a small amount of programming to change the software to allow the additional questions to be asked? The Minister of State stated the question on nationality in the CSO questionnaire will help resolve the ethnicity issue. Let us take an African-American. He or she may be Roman Catholic, hold US citizenship and have resided in the United States prior to coming to Ireland. None of the questions referred to by the Minister of State tell us anything about such a person's ethnic background. The only way to get that information is to put the question on the form. The excuses the Minister of State has given do not hold up.
The Deputy's example demonstrates the difficulties we face. As Deputy Quinn has accepted, what is needed is a series of boxes which respondents can tick off, not an open-ended question. That is the way we carry out the census. In the example referred to by the Deputy, which ethnic group could one place in a box? There is no answer to that question.
The Minister of State should make a telephone call.
It is not rocket science.
The British have it.
The Deputy has demonstrated very clearly the difficulty of the issue.
Not so.
I am advised by the Central Statistics Office of the difficulty of describing groups such as Roma, Travellers, Asians, Afro-Americans, Black Caribbeans, Black Africans and Australians. One might omit to mention other groups. This has only recently been resolved in the United Kingdom.
Six or seven boxes would resolve it.
They have resolved it.
They encountered horrific sensitive issues trying to resolve this matter. We have made a start by inserting several new questions. That is progress and the CSO advises me we will measure ethnicity fully in the 2006 census.