OPPOSITION Leader Grant Gibbons has expressed concern at news that, for the first time, the annual Employment Survey would require employers to report on the gross annual income and entitlements of each of their employees, arguing the move could well be perceived as laying the groundwork for a future income tax.

But Statistician Steven Holdipp gave an assurance that the new procedure was merely to promote greater bureaucratic efficiency.

"The income and benefits questions are the same as they were when they were collected by CURE (the Commission for Unity & Racial Equality)," said Mr. Holdipp. "It was realised that, in many respects, there was a duplication of effort, and that it made sense for this information to be collected as part of our survey."

CURE is a Government department which falls under the supervision of the Ministry of Community & Cultural Affairs. Since the passage of the Statistics Act, 2001, the Statistics Department reports directly to the Cabinet Office.

"It's a working collaboration," continued Mr. Holdipp, "and CURE is happy to transfer the data gathering responsibilities to this department, as we are more suited to doing it.

"It just so happens that many of the items of data had been collected by us historically, so it was just a question of us adding those two data variables on income and benefits to the Employment Survey this year for the first time. The only impetus behind this is a move towards efficiency."

Mr. Holdipp confirmed that income and benefits information would be collected for all employees of entities which had ten or more employees, whereas the Expenditure Survey, currently near completion, was based on sampling techniques, using a sample size of about 1,200 households.

Dr. Gibbons stressed that the Opposition had complained about the Statistics Act at the time the legislation was debated.

"The UBP was very concerned about the Statistics Act 2001 at the time, and we warned against it. It allowed the Chief Statistician much greater powers to collect much more detailed information about companies and individuals, and there were penalties associated with refusal to give that information.

"We pointed out that when Canada had put though increased powers to collect information of that sort, it had enacted parallel legislation which also protected the privacy of individuals, and put limits on what could or could not be collected. That should have happened here, but, so far, we have only seen the Statistics Act."

Dr. Gibbons said that the UBP's concerns were not restricted only to the prospect of invasion of privacy, but also to what they saw as the very real potential for political interference.

"What I think is really disgraceful here is that this is a Government which promised that it would operate in the sunshine of public scrutiny, and we have seen anything but that," he said. "The public has been misled on any number of issues, information has been withheld, and very little divulged. But, on the other hand, they are quite happy to go ahead and collect detailed information on individuals.

"We know this Government is going to need to collect much more money to make up for the millions squandered at Bermuda Housing Corporation and the senior school project at Berkeley, and collecting detailed information like this could smack of income tax down the road.

"It has been in the Progressive Labour Party platform on any number of occasions, and although it has been on the 'back burner' in the last two elections, we have heard people in the PLP speak recently, and longingly, in the House about income tax.

"I don't know if there is any connection between this collection of data by the Statistics Department and the prospect of income tax, but it should be a cause for some concern."

Mr. Gibbons believed that the type of information about income by different households that could be required by CURE to identify people who were suffering because of racial inequality could be collected by the use of sampling techniques, as was done for the Expenditure Survey, and to some extent, for the Census.

"Any ongoing collection of data on individual employees in a personal or specific manner would be quite a departure from precedent, and would be a real invasion of privacy. I think that everyone has a concern about the amount of data that governments collect on individuals. The Statistics department used to be part of the Ministry of Finance, but it now reports directly to the Cabinet Office, to the Premier.

"That was one of our real concerns at the time of the Act: what access would the Cabinet, or political side, have to information collected under the Statistics Act? It can certainly provide them with direction, we know that."

Major Kenneth Dill, acting deputy Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, disavowed any Cabinet interest in the income information being collected by Statistics, and agreed with Mr. Holdipp that it was merely a rationalisation of information-gathering for CURE.

"That information has been collected by CURE since 2001, I believe, from every employer with ten or more emplyees, and employers have had to give all of that demographic information to CURE. Neither the Premier nor anyone else here at the Cabinet office sees that information or has any particular interest in it."