Plenary, 09 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, March 9, 2000

Official Report 640KB pdf

---

Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is on motion S1M-636, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the general principles of the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Members who wish to speak in this stage 1 debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now, so that we can see how many we need to fit into this short debate. I invite Jim Wallace to open the debate.

This short bill, which has only two sections, fulfils an undertaking that I gave to the Parliament on 16 February during the debate on the draft Census (Scotland) Order 2000. I said then that, having listened carefully to the strong views expressed, the Executive had decided that a religion question should be included in the 2001 census in Scotland, as in other parts of the UK.

As I made clear at the time, the inclusion of a religion question will require a change in the primary legislation, which will be found in the Census Act 1920. The bill before us today seeks to amend that act by adding religion to a schedule to the act. An amendment to the 1920 act is necessary, because the schedule, which specifies those matters on which particulars can be required in a census, does not provide for questions on religion. Furthermore, we propose to amend the section of the act on penalties for failing to comply with census obligations, to ensure that those who do not answer questions on religion will not be liable to a penalty.

The Executive has been prepared to listen to the views of the Equal Opportunities Committee, the Commission for Racial Equality and others on the case for a religion question in the census. We acknowledge the force of the argument that users of the census, who were consulted widely, may not have given full weight to the developing agenda of equality proofing and social inclusion.

We recognise the sensitive nature of personal views on religion. We are satisfied, as we are required to be, that the bill's proposals are consistent with the European convention on human rights. Although asking a religion question in the 2001 census may amount to a prima facie interference with the right to respect for private and family life, it is our view that there is no interference where there is no compulsion to answer the question.

In any case, any interference can be justified in terms of article 8.2 of the convention, which states that a public authority can interfere with the enjoyment of the right to respect for private and family life only where that

"is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

The main purpose of the religion question is to provide benchmarking information for social inclusion policies designed to prevent discrimination against specific religious groups. The question will also provide information that will improve services to minority religious groups. It is the Executive's view that the legitimate aims of such policies are the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the prevention of disorder and crime and, possibly, the economic well-being of the country.

Article 9 of the European convention, which confers the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is also relevant. It is our view that asking a person to state his or her religion does not constitute interference with that person's right to hold and to manifest any religious belief, particularly given that there is no criminal penalty for failing to answer the question. Accordingly, it is considered that the bill is compatible with the convention.

The proposals in the bill follow the approach in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales by making it clear that the religion question or questions will, in effect, be voluntary. As I have said, the normal penalties for refusing to answer a census question will not apply in the case of religion. The voluntary nature of the religion question will be made clear on the census form.

Our willingness to listen and to change our initial views on this topic were widely welcomed in the debate on the draft Census (Scotland) Order 2000. I said then that I hoped that MSPs who pressed for a religion question would help the passage of the bill through Parliament as speedily as possible so that the timetable for the census would not be placed in jeopardy and extra costs could be contained.

Following the passage of the bill through the Parliament, we intend to introduce a census amendment order, and census amendment regulations, to add religion to the list of topics to be included in the 2001 census and to specify the precise form of the question or questions to be asked.

A separate consultation is currently in hand on the form of the religion question or questions to be asked. Responses have been requested by 17 March. It is not the purpose of today's debate to go into the detail of that, although I take this opportunity to encourage those who have been invited to submit their views to do so before 17 March.

A similar bill is currently before the Westminster Parliament to enable a voluntary question on religion to be asked in the 2001 census in England and Wales. Northern Ireland already has primary legislation enabling a religion question to be asked.

At stage 2, there will be an opportunity to look in more detail at the bill. Meanwhile, I commend the general principles of the bill to Parliament and look forward to Parliament's co-operation in ensuring the bill's swift passage.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I confirm that we welcome the amendment to the Census Act 1920 to enable a question or questions on religion to be asked in the next census in Scotland. It is reassuring that the bill makes it clear that the criminal penalties for not answering questions in the census will not apply to questions on religion.

Before and during the debate on 16 February, many strong arguments for including a religion question were put forward so successfully that the minister was persuaded, as he has said, to change his mind on the matter.

Researchers and others who are closely acquainted with the evidence of social exclusion and discrimination arising from religious background and affiliation in Scotland are convinced that the information will help to establish the facts about the extent and location of inequality.

I notice that the policy memorandum, which accompanies the bill, states:

"While alternative procedures such as household surveys can provide some relevant information for the Executive's purposes, only a Census can give comprehensive coverage of all households to enable authoritative, accurate and comparable statistics to be produced for all parts of the country and for small geographical areas and sub-groups of the population."

We totally agree with that, but it is still a matter of regret that the Executive was not persuaded of the need to include a question on the Scots language in the next census for the same reasons. I would like to assure the minister, however, that efforts to promote Scots and to confer status on and recognition to the language will continue—on a cross-party basis, I hope. Many expressions of support were articulated from all parts of the chamber last month.

It was regrettable that the convener of the European Committee chose to write, in his Paisley Daily Express column of 21 February, a most insulting and ill-informed article, which ridiculed the language and those who speak it. It is a pity that he does not seem to subscribe to the Executive view that the Scots language is an important part of Scotland's distinct linguistic and cultural heritage and, as such, merits support. Moreover, he does not seem to appreciate that Scots is the language that many children bring to school or that the Executive advocates the inclusion of Scots in the curriculum as the most appropriate means of teaching a proper awareness and appreciation of the language, which is much needed by Hugh Henry.

I acknowledge the consultation exercise that is being carried out. It will allow individuals and representatives of organisations with an interest in census questions—either generally or on religion and ethnicity in particular—to express their opinions and preferences, even if the explanations and descriptions of the various options are a little convoluted and restrictive. For example, there is insufficient space for both option 1 for religion and option 3 for ethnicity.

Much mention has been made of space and of the intention to limit the number of pages in the 2001 census to 20. One of the reasons given for that was cost. However, the minister assured the Equal Opportunities Committee that cost was not a factor. I suggest that it is more important to ensure that the questions are relevant, meaningful and guaranteed to provide useful information.

We await with interest the outcome of the consultation, but we support the Executive motion on the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome the minister's legislative proposals, which take forward the undertaking that he gave in the previous debate on the census.

The minister mentioned the pressure that was brought to bear by the Equal Opportunities Committee and others. I suspect that I fall into the "others" category, being one of the members who lodged a motion on this matter. I was pleased by the cross-party support that the motion attracted, and I thank those members, from all parties, who supported it.

I am particularly encouraged by the minister's undertaking that there will be no criminal penalties for those who wish to avoid answering the question. Although that undertaking may encourage some people to avoid answering it, I think it important that, on religious faith, people have the option not to answer.

I am keen for a question on religion in the census because I believe Scotland to be an open, tolerant society. For those people who have suffered religious discrimination, society has been becoming more open and tolerant over the years, and I am sure that, when the question on religious faith is included not just in the 2001 census but in the 2011 census, we will be able to establish the degree to which Scotland enjoys tolerance.

I am particularly keen to ensure the speedy passage of the bill, so, after a record time of less than two minutes, I will sit down.

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Labour party, especially as, at the beginning of the year, I was the first to raise the matter with the minister in the chamber. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has demonstrated its readiness to listen and to act when necessary.

I believe that the Scottish Parliament is strengthened by its willingness to listen to the genuine concerns of the Scottish people and that the Scottish Executive is similarly strengthened by its willingness to accept those legitimate concerns when they are put forward rationally and persuasively. If anything is a sign of the much-vaunted new politics, that is.

The passing of the bill, with amendments, will be a significant step in the development and growing confidence of our Parliament. It will clearly illustrate that the mechanisms and structures of the Scottish Parliament are fulfilling the function for which they were designed. We have been particularly fortunate that the establishment of the Scottish Parliament has fallen at precisely the right time to allow us to influence the type of data that we will recover from our next census.

In the 18th century, John Rickman, clerk to the House of Commons, said that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. That is a succinct and enduring justification for the continued need for a census. It is difficult to overstate the importance of accurate, relevant and detailed data about our population. The census allows us to understand better how things really are in our society so that we can more effectively make them how we want them to be.

A properly focused census provides the information from which effective social and economic policy is derived and the base from which the efficacy of the policy can be measured. Previous research, including the 1975 Scottish social mobility survey and the 1992 Scottish election survey, indicated that Catholics were significantly less likely to end up in non-manual jobs. The University of Glasgow's research, under the "West of Scotland Twenty 07" study, indicated that the problem was greatest in the urban areas of the west of Scotland.

There is evidence that the problem is becoming less severe, but the sample size of those studies prevents us from gaining an accurate picture of the extent of the problem and the way in which it is changing. As a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I am convinced that there is reasonable evidence that Catholics are facing discrimination and exclusion. I was persuaded that the inclusion of a question on religion, which would include a breakdown of Christian denominations, would allow us to gauge the scale and locality of the problem and to plan effective measures to combat discrimination.

I was pleased that the minister stated in the previous census debate that the main purpose of a religious question is to help to prevent discrimination against minority religious groups as part of our wider social inclusion agenda. The fight against social exclusion and discrimination is central to this Parliament and gains cross-party support.

I am also pleased that the Executive has responded to the concerns of ethnic minority groups and is willing to work in partnership with them to expand the ethnic group question. We cannot afford to be complacent about the discrimination that members of our ethnic communities face. We cannot hide behind the myth that Scotland does not have a racism problem. We must face up to the harsh reality that is faced daily by many members of our ethnic communities. To do that, we must have accurate data about the scale and nature of discrimination. The expansion of the ethnic question will allow proper correlation of that data and will enable us to gain a more accurate picture of what life is like for our ethnic minorities.

The expansion of the question is indicative of a mature Executive that is prepared to listen to arguments and to change its stance where appropriate. It should be noted that, without the prompting of any committee or any member, the Scottish Executive has added a number of important questions to the 2001 census, including on general health, the provision of unpaid care and place of study. The Executive is to be commended on the care that it has taken to include those questions while ensuring that the census is kept to a reasonable length.

The passing of the bill, with its amendments, will demonstrate our commitment to achieving the goal of greater opportunity for all. The bill demonstrates that equal opportunity is more than just the name of a committee or flippant political rhetoric. Equality of opportunity is a cornerstone of the process in which the Parliament is engaged.

It is important that we get the census right. We cannot afford to wait another 10 years to rectify any mistakes that are caused by the omission of important questions. The Scottish Executive has got the census right and the results will form the basis of much of the work in which we will be engaged over the coming years.

We now move to the open part of the debate. Unusually, no opening speaker has overrun, and we are considerably ahead of ourselves. Several members have indicated that they want to speak, and I shall be reasonably flexible.

I am delighted to speak in this debate this afternoon. I note that we are not going to punish anyone for failing to complete the religion section of the census form. I was put in mind of the referendum that was held in 1979. In that instance, those who did not bother to take part were counted on one side of the argument. I hope that there is no intention of lumping together those who do not complete this section into any ethnic group or religious affiliation.

The options in the census include a category for people who, like me, have converted to a religion during their lifetime. I do not think that that will be easy to assess. Someone may have been brought up in a religion without having the option to join the Church until they became an adult. Therefore, someone may have been brought up in a religion without, as the question asks, actually being a member of that Church. I do not know how such a person would respond to that question, which is not put sufficiently clearly. However, I have some sympathy for the Administration's preference, as a question on the religion to which someone has converted during their lifetime might not produce any clear-cut answers.

Some people who have joined my faith previously belonged to several different faiths. I do not know how the question could be answered in those circumstances. Those people would have to say that they started off in one faith, converted to another and then moved on to another. I do not know whether anyone who tried to assess that information would gain any statistical information that would help in the future provision of services.

We are offering only three choices of Christianity: the Church of Scotland, Roman Catholicism or another form of Christianity. I do not know whether those categories will be helpful in the provision of services. Consideration might be given to some interesting groups, the details of which might be useful to service providers. One such group is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a particular health code, including a view on blood transfusions, for example. The health service might be interested in the prevalence of such views in the population at large. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—also known as the Mormons—which also has an unusual health code. In these politically correct days, that code is fairly up to date. We do not smoke or drink, and we certainly hope not to cause problems relating to sexually transmitted diseases, as we adhere to the rule of chastity before marriage.

I suggest that identifying adherence to faiths such as mine—as well as to those of the Jehovah's Witnesses and others that have their own health codes—might be helpful to public service providers who are researching the prevalence of diseases according to people's lifestyles and eating, smoking and drinking habits. However, the fact that someone has ticked a box does not mean that they adhere to what their faith prescribes.

I am not suggesting that we should carry out compliance testing and say to those who claim to be adherents to my faith, for example, that we will test their urine to see whether nicotine is present. Nevertheless, useful information, beyond the examples that I have given, could be gleaned if there were more boxes to tick.

I am similarly concerned about the ethnicity question. I do not know whether people want to use the labelling that is offered—black Asian, Scottish Asian or Bangladeshi Asian, for example. I am also interested to hear why that level of detail is considered useful by those who provide public services, which is the basic reason for the census. We want to glean as much information as we can, but do we want to do that on the basis of arriving at politically correct answers rather than answers that will be useful? However, I support the bill.

We are all aware of the importance of the census. As has been said, it provides decision makers at all levels of government with valuable social and economic information on which to base policy. It also provides information on the changing nature of our communities and society and so is valuable in gauging how effective, or otherwise, the Government has been.

This will be a landmark census: the first to be conducted since the establishment of the new Parliament and the first of the new millennium. It will also be a landmark census because, during the debate in February, in our committees and in other meeting places, there was much discussion about its nature, the areas that it should cover, the questions that it should include and how those questions should be asked. Members present today led the call to include further questions—on religion, ethnicity, language spoken in the home, the Scots language and income.

Those questions were thoroughly debated by the Equal Opportunities Committee, where there was agreement on the need for the Executive to review the possibility of including further questions. Having taken evidence from the Deputy First Minister, the committee, to its credit, was able to persuade the Executive of the need for a question on religion and for further information on ethnic group.

Jim Wallace is right to say that decisions on which questions to include are about priorities. We know that there are many demands from many quarters for the inclusion of the new question; we also understand the need to limit the census so that it is not so lengthy that people are dissuaded from completing it.

In co-operating with the Executive to deliver sound policies for equality, the Equal Opportunities Committee recognises the importance of the additions. Our intention was never opposition for opposition's sake. Our position was based on what the committees were established to do—to help the Executive to develop good policies and legislation.

The additions are not simply about counting the number of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or any other group. The question about religion is designed to deliver important information on inequalities. Likewise, the further information on ethnicity is not about counting how many people belong to an ethnic group but about delivering important information that will help the Government to develop better policies.

Without pre-empting the conclusions of the discussion of section 28 in the Equal Opportunities Committee, I must express my deep disappointment that representatives of the Catholic and Muslim communities—communities that these additions are designed to help—could come to the committee meeting on Monday and so blatantly ask for discrimination against another section of our society.

It is to the credit of the Executive, the committee system and this Parliament that the new questions will be included if the bill is passed. Their inclusion highlights how the Parliament is working, how consensus politics is developing and how the Executive is listening—contrary to what may be reported in the media.

I am aware that some members will be disappointed that some questions, such as those on the Scots language and on income, will not be included on this occasion. I am also aware of the arguments for and against the inclusion of those questions. However, as the date of the census is fast approaching, I urge members from all parties to recognise that it is vital that this important bill is passed as soon as possible. The inclusion of the questions on religion and ethnicity is an important step forward.

Although there will be time in future to revisit the issue of whether to include further questions, there is little time before the census process is scheduled to begin. This is a landmark census, which will provide valuable information to our new Parliament. It is important that the census is conducted on time, so it is important that stage 1 of the bill is agreed to today.

I want to make a few brief points. Perhaps it is because we had a debate on this subject recently that there has not been a rush to the microphone today. That does not mean that we do not recognise the importance of the debate or of the decisions that are being made about the census. I will address the reasons why people wanted to include a question on religion.

First, it is of historical interest to capture at a particular time in Scotland's history the fact that people who have strong religious beliefs identify themselves as such. That reason would be sufficient in itself to include a question on religion. Much is claimed for religion. At the turn of the century, and under a new Parliament, there is an opportunity to ask to what extent people feel that religion is still important to them. The census allows people to express that view and I welcome the inclusion of the question on religion for that reason.

Secondly, as has been mentioned, for some groups, particularly within the ethnic minority community, the issue of religion weighs heavily on service needs. This point relates to observance rather than belief. For example, it is important for the education authority to know the requirements of young Muslim girls, in areas such as physical education and diet. As part of our drive to ensure that we meet the needs of all our communities, the information from a census question on religion will allow us to open up dialogue and debate more fully with those who attempt to provide services.

I will try to put this as carefully as possible. It might be easier to identify someone from a Muslim background and therefore easier to identify their needs. However, there are other people who might look the same as everybody else, but who have the same kind of dietary or religious observance needs as Muslims have. That is one of the reasons why I identified two particular groups—I know that there will be others. Perhaps some of the points that I made earlier were a little facetious. We cannot take the census down to minute detail, but the level of detail for which I asked would be helpful.

We should be careful not to assume that all Muslims come from a particular ethnic background. Many people whose families have come from Asian countries might now identify themselves as being Scottish Muslims. A question on religion is important because those people might have religious observance needs.

I take the point that Brian Adam makes, but the reason for including the questions on ethnicity and religion was that the black and ethnic minority communities, in particular, were asking for that. That weighed very heavily with the members who sit on the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is significant that the service providers were not asking for those questions to be included. That suggests that we should encourage our service providers to open up and think about minority communities in our society. Just because the service providers do not ask for particular information to be included, that does not mean that it is not required.

When the black and ethnic minority communities asked for the questions on ethnicity and religion to be included, they were, in a sense, testing this Parliament's willingness to listen. We did listen, and the questions were included. Our Parliament should be applauded for seizing an opportunity. I recognise that the situation would have been different if we had been dealing with a main plank of Government policy, but we welcome the flexibility that the Executive showed in the matter.

I want to make two further short points that I hope the minister will address now or at a later stage. First, although the bill deals with issues relating to the diversity of our community, it is couched in archaic language, with the male pronoun used as the generic. I hope that we will take the opportunity to be bold and to use modern language that recognises not only that women have the right to equality, but that they exist in terms of the bill.

Secondly, there has been a recognition throughout the debate on the census that it is important to get disaggregated data on black and ethnic minority communities and on women. I ask the minister to comment on the role of Engender, which has given us the gender audit. Will she outline the other ways in which the Executive intends to seek the important information that we need to ensure that what we talk about in the chamber and what policy makers talk about here and at local level matches the experience of people locally? We need to move on the clear inequalities that the Engender report exposes, which are also evident in other parts of our society.

It will come as no great surprise to the Deputy First Minister to hear that Liberal Democrat members welcome and support the bill. The inclusion of a question on religion in the census is a necessary and welcome change. It is important that no penalty should be imposed on those who refuse to answer the question, and I am pleased that that concession has been made.

It is pleasing to hear the Executive confirm that the bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, given the recent debate that we had on that subject.

For us, the future use of the information to prevent discrimination is the most important principle underlined in the bill. It is important that discrimination may be reduced as a result of the information that will be drawn from the census.

I was pleased to hear that there will be consultation on the form of the question that is to be asked on religion. That is welcome and shows that the Executive is prepared to listen to constructive comments.

At this stage, I do not think that there is much more to be said about the bill, and I am not sure why we will need such a long time to debate it next week. It is hardly the most controversial measure that is before the chamber. However, if I may be indulged for a moment—

With the greatest pleasure.

I support the inclusion of a question on income in the census, although that is not strictly relevant to today's debate. I do so because I believe that it is important to draw out that information. If we are not able to obtain it from the census, we must gather it from other sources and by other means, because it would assist the definition of such important concepts as rural deprivation, to take but one.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I commend the bill to the Parliament.

I welcome the opportunity to express my party's thanks and congratulations to the Executive on introducing the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I wish to repeat how glad we are that Mr Wallace saw fit to agree to a question on religion—that is a good case of "Jim'll Fix It"—otherwise Scotland's reputation as a tolerant nation might have been questioned. It would have been the only country in the UK not to have a question on religion in the census.

I am deeply grateful to the Commission for Racial Equality for its work towards that goal and for the legitimate request by representatives of the Muslim community for a question on religion. I am grateful to Brian Monteith for his motion and to members of other parties who signed that motion, which showed undoubted cross-party support. We are also grateful to all the individuals who wrote to their MSPs highlighting the need for such a question. Thankfully, they now have their reward.

The question on religion is particularly important in Scotland. I hope that the consultation exercise provides for the inclusion of a question about the different denominations of Christianity, as a simple question on Christianity would not give us the information that is required so that we can care for the needs of our diverse population.

The example of the western isles springs to mind—there are populations of Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. Some groups like ferries to sail on Sundays, while others do not; some wish fishing boats to be tied up at weekends, while others prefer to go to sea. All views must be respected, at least, and it is important to know which areas are populated by which denominations, so that decisions about service provision—particularly on the Sabbath—can be made that avoid offending people.

As the spokesperson for the Commission for Racial Equality said,

"It isn't simply a question of numbers. In order to ensure that service providers know the needs of ethnic minority people in Scotland we feel the question needs to be asked."

As far as I know, the question proposed for England and Wales does not distinguish between different Christian denominations, whereas that proposed for Northern Ireland does. I believe that the latter would be the most sensible solution for Scotland.

The question will supplement information gathered from the ethnic question and will assist in the tailoring of public services to the needs of different communities. More specific statistics will help social research and therefore aid the prevention of discrimination, which is, after all, the aim of our Scottish Parliament, which actively promotes social inclusion and equality.

I welcome the Executive's turnaround on the question on religion and on the enhanced ethnic minority categories. I also welcome the Executive's acknowledgement of the need for equality proofing, which shows that the Executive realises that such proofing must be actioned rather than just spoken about. I hope that the example of the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will have an impact on future initiatives.

It remains a matter of regret that the Executive was not able to go the whole hog and accept the inclusion of a question on the Scots language and other languages spoken in the home. I agree with Irene McGugan's comments on Hugh Henry's unpleasant little piece in the Paisley Daily Express, when he talked about confusing people "with strange words", but perhaps that says more about Hugh Henry's ability to be easily confused. I am sure that the rest of the chamber does not share his thoughts.

Would the member care to send me a copy of that article?

I have a copy of it here, which I will give Mr Monteith at the end of the debate.

The Executive agreed to consult users and interested parties on the form of the questions on religion and ethnicity. It was not wholly necessary of the Executive to be so restrictive with the options in the consultation paper. I seek clarification that, if the Executive receives good, positive suggestions outwith those options, those suggestions will be considered seriously.

I agree with Irene McGugan about the consultation paper's unnecessary emphasis on cost implications. It is more important to get the question right than it is to emphasise the cost.

I have some sympathy with option 1 for the question on religion. That would provide adequate information without confusing those who will complete the form. I agree with the minister that answering that question should not be made compulsory and that it should be made clear that no sanctions will be employed against those who do not wish to answer the question.

I also have some sympathy with option 2 on ethnic grouping. That would provide us with a more detailed breakdown, which would be useful for service development, among other things. I am, however, aware that the CRE is also keen to have Irish included as a category. We should listen to its arguments rather than attempting to rule out its suggestions through the consultation paper. We might otherwise miss out on some good ideas.

I look forward to the results of the consultation after 17 March. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister enjoys his visits to the Equal Opportunities Committee and I hope that we will see him there again soon. As deputy convener of the committee, I note with satisfaction that 90 per cent of what the committee wanted to be included in the bill will be included. The next time the committee takes the Executive to task, we will be 100 per cent successful.

I conclude by assuring the Executive that the Scottish National party will co-operate fully in ensuring the swift passage of the bill.

We are running about five minutes ahead of time. If Jackie Baillie wishes to move a motion for a suspension for a few minutes, I would be willing to accept such a motion. Otherwise, she may stretch her speech out until two minutes to 5.

Let us see how I get on—I will speak slowly. I say that in case members think that I am having difficulty in stringing my sentences together.

I am grateful for the views expressed during the debate. I am also genuinely grateful for the support that has been given to the principles of the bill and for the recognition that speedy passage of the bill is necessary to keep to the census timetable.

I will deal with some of the specific points that were raised. I agree with Irene McGugan that the household survey will be useful in identifying factors that link ethnicity, religion, social inclusion and equality, but that the size and location of different religious groups will be most effectively assessed throughout Scotland by the census.

On the vexed issue of the length of the census form, we have always said clearly that cost is only one of the factors that must be considered—it is not the be-all and end-all. It is crucial that we consider the effect that an over-long census form might have on overall response rates. The form for the 1991 census was 12 pages long. The new form will be almost double that. The form must not exceed 20 pages in length—all our research tells us that that would result in a dramatic fall in the response rate.

This is probably an historic occasion because it is the only time that I have found myself in agreement with Brian Monteith. Given that he spoke for only about a minute, however, it was incredibly hard to do otherwise. I think that Brian was trying to put me on the spot to see how inventive I could be at filling in time. I do not normally refuse opportunities to speak and I was truly surprised that he had so little to say, as I am conscious that politicians sometimes like the sound of their own voice too much.

Will Jackie Baillie give way? [Laughter.]

Absolutely.

Given that members all agree with one another and that the Parliament is new and forward looking, does the minister agree that a three-hour debate next week on the census is a wee bit ower-long? If that cannot be changed on this occasion, could such changes be considered in future? We are in so much agreement that things are getting boring.

At the risk of being boring, I could not agree more with Trish Godman. Given that I might have responsibility for summing up in that debate, the thought of its lasting three hours when we can barely sustain an hour's debate today does not exactly fill me with joy. As some of the business managers are present, I am sure that they will take that on board rather than have me suffer any further. I shall raise the issue with them.

I agree with Karen Whitefield and Michael McMahon. The first census of a new millennium is indeed a landmark census. I also agree that the process highlights the role that the Equal Opportunities Committee played in informing the Executive so that we could arrive at the right conclusion. As Johann Lamont said, the views of representatives of the black and ethnic minority communities were significant.

Johann helpfully raised the point of language. Members will not be surprised that I sympathise with her view that language should not be gender specific. I am delighted to tell Johann that, although the Census Act 1920 refers to "he", our census bill refers to a "person". I am sure that she would like to intervene to welcome that.

I have built a reputation for being obliging to ministers at every opportunity, so I welcome what has been said. I hope that that will apply to all the work that we do on bills and other public documents. The language that we use should reflect the diverse nature of our society, and particularly the experiences of both men and women.

Johann should say that in Gaelic, too.

I agree with what Johann Lamont says. In her speech, she also made some serious points about Engender. For those who are not aware of its work, I should explain that Engender provides useful statistics, which, because there was a vacuum of figures on gender, it presented to the Equal Opportunities Committee. The equality unit will be developing that work; it is discussing with the central statistics unit how we can gather gender-disaggregated data in future. The census itself will collect information on gender, which can be cross-referenced. That will be critical in informing policy development.

Shona Robison raised some valid issues about equality proofing. Our equality strategy, which is the subject of consultation at the moment, will address those points. We are not restricting options to what was in the paper that was circulated for consultation. We would welcome fresh thinking but, as I said, the length of the form is critical and affects not just cost, but the overall response rate.

I enjoyed Brian Adam's contribution, but I will not address the points that he raised, because it is not the purpose of today's debate to deal with the precise form of the question or questions on religion that are to be included in the census, subject to the passing of the bill. Following the undertaking given last month, the registrar general is currently consulting on the form of the questions on religion and on ethnic group. I encourage Brian Adam to contribute to that process.

Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to all those who have expressed an interest in the matter. Although the deadline for responses is 17 March, the Equal Opportunities Committee is looking for a day or two's grace to get its response in. I am sure that that will be acceptable, provided that that period is not more than a day or two, as the speedy passage of the bill would be most helpful.

There are limits to the length of the census form. Response rates will fall; costs will rise. The constraints within which we are working are clearly set out and explained in the paper.

Let me repeat the following key points. The Executive has listened carefully—

Will the minister take a brief intervention on the question of income? If there is no room in the census for an income question, can she say whether there are other methods for picking up such information, which is important to some of us in considering such concepts as rural deprivation, for example? There may be other methods of collecting that information, so I would be interested to hear from her, when she has taken some advice, what those methods might be.

My understanding is that we gave a commitment in the debate on 16 February to consider gathering information on income, for the valid reasons that Euan Robson gives. That commitment was set out by the Deputy First Minister, and we will return to it in due course.

The Executive has listened carefully to the considered views voiced by the Equal Opportunities Committee and others about the inclusion of a question on religion in the 2001 census. In particular, the Executive recognises the need for the religion question, which will provide benchmarking information to improve our social inclusion policies and our interventions. We wish to see robust social inclusion policies that are designed to prevent discrimination against religious groups. Accurate information is critical to that; we need the evidence to get the policies right. The question or questions on religion will also provide information to help to improve services to minority religious groups, and will be of assistance to local authorities, health boards and other service providers.

Members of minority communities consider religion to be an important aspect of their identity. As more people are identifying themselves in terms of their religion or culture than ever before, it is appropriate to look at new ways in which to collect information from groups such as Muslims and Sikhs, for whom religion is an important cultural attribute.

The bill is the first step in fulfilling the undertaking that we gave in the debate on 16 February, which was to modify our earlier proposals set out in the Census (Scotland) Order 2000. That is because, to enable a religion question to be asked in Scotland, it is necessary to amend the primary census legislation, which is the Census Act 1920. The bill has just two sections. It will enable a voluntary question or questions on religion to be included in any future census in Scotland. Of course, the Executive is alive to the fact that religion is a sensitive issue, hence the voluntary nature of the religion question. That will be made clear on the census form, so that the individual completing the form will be aware of that fact.

It is essential that the timetable for the census on 29 April 2001 is not placed in jeopardy. I seek the Parliament's agreement to the general principles of the bill.