Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 20 June 2000 vol 352 cc266-311

Order for Second Reading read.

10.27 pm

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to make a modest change to the Census Act 1920 so that a question on religious affiliation can be included in the next census of population in England and Wales in April 2001. This is necessary because, these days, many more people choose to identify themselves in respect of their religion or their culture, but there are no reliable figures for ethnic sub-groups or for religion. The 2001 census provides a unique opportunity to collect information from groups who increasingly prefer to identify themselves primarily in this way.

If we are to deal with discrimination in the provision of health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services, we require better information. We require better information about baseline figures against which racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups can be monitored. This information would be useful in the planning of religious education; it would have relevance in the regeneration of inner cities; and I would expect it to aid the very valuable work of voluntary sector religious groups.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend says that his Bill would aid planning for the provision of religious education, but since the proposed census question does not have a subset on the Christian religion determining whether one is Protestant or Catholic, how can that assist with the provision of religious education for families who wish their children to be brought up with a Catholic education?

Mr. Sayeed

I suggest that my right hon. Friend read the Lords debate, and particularly the answer given by the Bishop of Lincoln, who answered that question and dealt with it adequately. It would be wrong and unnecessary for me to parrot his words, as I believe that my right hon. Friend has them in front of him.

In their White Paper of last March on the 2001 census, the Government proposed including such a question. A wide range of faith organisations endorsed the proposal and it gained the support of the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Home Secretary's race relations forum and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Bill had a swift and unopposed passage in the other place and, I believe, commands the general support, but not the total support, of both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

My hon. Friend will know that an amendment accepted in the House of Lords means that it is not an offence to withhold the information. I am grateful for that at least, but, if there is no requirement to give the information, does not that mean that the information is not really required?

Mr. Sayeed

That is an interesting thought, but wrong, I think. Most people are prepared to give the information, but, because of the sensitivity of the question, it was decided that the normal rules and penalties that appertain to filling all census questions should not apply in this particular matter.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)

Will my hon. Friend say whether there is any precedent for introducing in primary legislation a duty for which the penalty for non-compliance is subsequently waived?

Mr. Sayeed

I remind my hon. Friend that there has been a requirement for a number of years in Northern Ireland to complete a religious question. A similar non-mandatory duty in Scotland has recently received Royal Assent.

Amendment of the Census Act 1920 is necessary because the schedule to it does not currently provide for particulars on religion to be recorded.

Many of the questions that are traditionally asked in the census are specifically covered in the first five paragraphs of the schedule. Others that may from time to time be required are covered by paragraph 6, which provides for any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population However, legal advice over the years has been that religion is not a matter of either social or civil condition. Legislation is required to allow a question on religion to be on the census.

Public tests of census questions have shown that the proposed question on religious affiliation is acceptable. Those who have had to complete the forms have understood the question and the quality of the response is sufficiently high for reliable information to be obtained. The question was satisfactorily included in the census rehearsal in April last year.

The Bill is simple, clear and short. Clause 1 adds religion specifically to those particulars that may be required to be provided in a census.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does my hon. Friend consider that the Bill complies with article 8 of the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Sayeed

I am advised by those civil servants who have briefed me on the matter that it does.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Civil servants? Then why is it not a Government Bill?

Mr. Sayeed

The Government can answer that question.

Mr. Leigh

Civil servants—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. I think that we have probably had enough interventions from a sedentary position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. I do not want to have to repeat what I have just said.

Mr. Sayeed

I wish to put it on the record that I am most grateful to the Government for providing the time for a private Member's Bill on this matter.

Clause 1(2) removes the liability to the penalty under section 8 of the 1920 Act in respect of anyone who refuses or neglects to state in their census return the particulars with respect to religion. In effect, this makes any such question on religion voluntary. Although the statutory requirement under the 1920 Act to respond to all other census questions remains, the voluntary status of the proposed religious question deliberately reflects the sensitivity that surrounds this specific topic.

The Bill affects only England and Wales. The census is a devolved matter in Scotland where legislation on this question has, I understand, already received Royal Assent. It is also a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and this amendment to the census would align census legislation in England and Wales with that of Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that religious affiliation changes in a way that race or sex do not? Equally, given that religious affiliation is a very personal matter, what guarantee can he give about the accuracy of this information? After all, I might be a member of whatever religion I might fancy, and who could gainsay me? Who could say that I was wrong?

Mr. Sayeed

The census is a snapshot of the time that it is taken. Therefore, if my hon. Friend chooses one religion at that particular time, that is his religion of the moment. It does not mean that in 10 years' time he may not have changed his mind.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but it would be very helpful if you could tell us the Bill's status. I understand that this is a private Member's Bill which is being given Government time. It would be extremely helpful if you could confirm that that is the case. If it is, could you tell the House whether there are any precedents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct—that is precisely the case. There are many precedents for this procedure.

Mr. Sayeed

It is clear that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, no doubt, Labour Members, wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred earlier to the question being the same in Scotland as is proposed in England and Wales, but that is not correct. The question on religion in Scotland will be very differently phrased. How can he justify that?

Mr. Sayeed

I believe that I said that the Bill would be similar—I did not say that the question itself would be the same. As I understand it, the question in Scotland differentiates between different Christian religions.

Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)

On the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to Scotland, can he confirm that the intention in this Bill is that the question in Wales will make direct reference to the Church in Wales, and not the Church of England?

Mr. Sayeed

I can confirm that that is the case. The question will not be phrased "the Church of England".

Mr. Hogg

This is one of the problems of introducing a private Member's Bill. By what authority does my hon. Friend tell us what the question will be in Wales?

Mr. Sayeed

By reading the notes and the information with which I have been provided. I suggest that if my right hon. and learned Friend had consulted the same information, he would have reached that answer without asking me.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has shown generosity and forbearance in the course of his short speech. Does he agree with the verdict of section 8 of the explanatory notes to the Bill that the response to the census will provide useful information about racial disadvantage and social exclusion?

Mr. Sayeed

Yes, I do, and that is why I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Maclean

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend as he reaches his peroration, but he is introducing a private Member's Bill and he has been receiving sensible advice from the official Box. Is it in order for the rest of us to consult the official Box so that we may receive advice on the relevant aspects of this highly complicated Bill? The precedent that permits only the Government to seek advice from officials clearly is not operative on this unique occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is receiving advice as the Member in charge of the Bill, which places him in a particular position.

Mr. Hogg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What would happen if I went to the official Box to ask for advice?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I should strongly discourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman from taking that course of action.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that you are ruling from the Chair that on occasions on which a private Member's Bill receives Government time, the promoter may have access, as of right, to official support that would normally be available only to a member of the Government? That strikes me as a new departure, and, if that is your ruling from the Chair, it seems to me that any future promoter of a private Member's Bill who is privileged enough to have Government time may have access to which other private Members are being simultaneously denied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not making any such ruling. Where the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire takes his advice is a matter for him. Conversations and advice occur in many different ways.

Mr. Hogg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been good enough to say that you would discourage me from seeking advice from the official Box. In view of your later ruling, however, I anticipate that you would not mind if I did so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I shall repeat what I have already said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that I made my position quite clear. He ought not to pursue that line, and it would be sensible if we moved on.

Mr. Hogg

rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall not deal any further with that point of order.

Mr. Sayeed

I had intended to give a speech of only six minutes or so, but time has moved on. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way. Let me answer a question that I failed fully to answer before the many points of order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about the question on the Welsh form—

Mr. Hogg

indicated dissent.

Mr. Sayeed

Someone asked about it. The right hon. or hon. Member in question can read the Bill's explanatory notes, which state: In Wales the words "Church in Wales" will be substituted for the words "Church of England" within the Christian category. That is where my information came from, and that is why I replied in the way that I did.

There are tensions in all multicultural and multi-faith societies. Discrimination fuels those tensions. Knowing the facts allows us better to plan what we do. This modest change to the Census Act 1920 will help us to gather facts and make a fairer society. I commend the Bill to the House.

10.44 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not wish to speak for long, but the Bill is misconstrued, at least in its present form. I start from the premise that this matter should not be the subject of a private Member's Bill that is being given Government time, a process that I very much distrust. I shall be candid in saying that I distrust it because of its likely impact on matters such as fox hunting. All my life, I have defended the right of people to go fox hunting. We have fought the matter many times in private Members' Bills, and the Government, hitherto, have not given time to such a Bill. They promise to do so in future, and the fight will be hard fought. However, I do not want to encourage the practice of a Government giving Government time to a private Member's Bill. That fact alone would be sufficient to cause me to oppose the measure.

The matter goes further than that. The Bill is intrusive. I am perfectly willing to concede that it is quite difficult to establish a set of disadvantages that flow from the Bill, other than the infringement of the principle. In the other place, Lord Stoddart made the point that the provision of that information could enable discriminatory Governments, at some future time, to pursue discriminatory policies. I accept that the noble Lord was right in principle, but I think that the likelihood is not great.

It is also true that the provision of such information could enable a Government more readily to impose burdensome regulation on industry and other sectors of the economy. That is more likely, and it is an objection. However, the objections are not themselves sufficient, so I return to the principle.

The principle that we should defend is that the Government of the day do not have a right to pry into our private affairs unless there is a compelling argument in favour of doing so. That is the principle that underlies the European convention on human rights, which the Government have incorporated into domestic law. For example, the House will be aware that—I think—article 8 applies to the right of privacy and to respect for private life and family, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).

That principle has been incorporated into domestic law. It is at least arguable that the passage of the Bill would infringe that right. However, in any event, we would be prying into other people's private life. We would be asking them to state their religion—although not with great conviction, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Bill includes the provision that it shall not be an offence to refuse to answer the question.

As the question is not asked with much conviction because it is an unenforceable obligation, why in God's name are we asking it? The fact that I cannot identify any really compelling disadvantages—

Mr. Forth

I will.

Mr. Hogg

My right hon. Friend may well do so, but I do not pretend that I can. However, I assert that there is a principle. I fear that, once we agree to giving Governments—by gradual steps—greater power to intrude, the consequence will be greater intrusion. I am against that.

I believe that the Government are rather totalitarian. They are oppressive in character. They ask of the people questions that they should not ask. They pass policies that they should not impose. They want to subject their fellow citizens to restrictions and obligations that should not be imposed. I do not see why I should be party to that tonight, so I very much hope that my hon. Friends and I will stop the Bill in its tracks, either by voting against it or by making plain our displeasure through extensive discussion.

10.49 pm

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

I was disappointed by the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It will be regarded with tremendous dismay in my constituency.

A section of the British citizens of Rotherham believes that it is necessary for society to find out—on a voluntary basis—about the composition of the different religious communities to which its members belong.

It is extraordinary to hear Conservative Members say that a question—to be answered on a wholly voluntary basis—that is proposed for the census should not be tabled. Never since I entered the House have I seen such a blatant, cynical and cold-blooded desire on the part of the Conservative party not to know its own country. It is interested only in ideology, not facts about the society in which we live.

Mr. Forth

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane

I would rather continue, so that we may move swiftly to the vote. After my speech, there will be no need for more from the Opposition Benches.

Throughout its entire history, the Conservative party has denied the rights of other religions until forced to do so by social revolt—whether it was Catholic emancipation, the right of Jews to sit in the House, or the desire of hon. Members to affirm at the Dispatch Box. At every stage, the Conservative party has been reactionary and ideological, and has shown contempt for other religions.

Mr. Leigh

Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. MacShane

I will not.

Mr. Leigh

But I am on the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. MacShane

For Conservative Members to say now that British citizens should not be allowed to declare their religion on a voluntary basis is an affront. I give way to the hon. Member for—

Mr. Forth

The Vatican.

Mr. MacShane

That is the voice of the old Tory party, which denied the Catholics of this country a place in this House.

Mr. Leigh

The hon. Member and I share in common a minority religion. In that sense, we approach many issues from the same point of view. Why is it necessary for governmental authorities to know our religion? What purpose would that serve? Have we not moved on from the time when people of our faith were persecuted in this country? We are all the same now—we are all British. That is all that matters. It does not matter whether we are Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Catholics or Protestants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make a speech.

Mr. MacShane

The hon. Gentleman makes the powerful, classic, republican and secularist point that religion has no place in our society. Yet, each day, we start our sitting in this House with prayers. We have a monarch who is head of the Church of England. That is the kind of country in which we live, where religion is important.

The last census was so vague in this matter that I do not know the religious composition of my constituency. It would be helpful to have that information because there are huge issues associated with schooling, overseas relationships and even food safety and hygiene that are of genuine importance to Jews, Muslims and Hindus. My constituents would like such a question on the census and I support them. Many Catholics, Protestants and—certainly in Rotherham—Methodists do not think to the contrary. As a representative of my constituents, I ask the House to support the Bill.

10.54 pm

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

The House is right to debate and scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, we ought to be concerned. When 1 first heard about the Bill, I asked myself: What right have the Government to demand information about our religious beliefs? Why should Governments be interested in people's religious beliefs? I read the debate in the other place and the arguments advanced as to the benefits that the Bill would provide for society. I read about improved information for the planning of health care, education and social care, and that would, no doubt, be an important benefit. I read about the way in which the information would help the regeneration of inner cities, and that is an important benefit. However, the question that we must consider is the cost of setting aside those benefits.

Mr. Fabricant

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davey

Let me make some progress first.

The benefits of the Bill are important, but the cost is that we are considering introducing a principle that will lead to intrusion into private beliefs. [Interruption.] If Labour Members will allow me to make some progress, I shall say why I am pleased that the voluntary amendment was accepted.

I was worried when I read the Bill when it was first published and then had its Second Reading in the House of Lords. There was no amendment to it at that stage for the information to be provided voluntarily. I have received representations from a constituent. Mr. John Harris of 109 Hook rise south, Chessington contacted me. Hon. Members may laugh, but my constituent is a distinguished genealogist who has studied censuses from every decade since the 19th century to pursue his hobby. He has noticed how, from census to census, the state has wanted more and more information and he is concerned that the Bill may require one piece of information too far.

I therefore considered what this private Member's Bill would require. If it were not for the amendment that was tabled in Committee in another place, I would oppose the Bill. However, I believe that that amendment, which would make the provision voluntary, has made the Bill acceptable—but only just. I want to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and the Minister for further assurances. For example, where will it say on the census form that the answer to the question is voluntary? I am sure that the Minister and, possibly the hon. Gentleman, will have received representations from civil servants who have said, "Oh, we cannot put it on the form directly next to the question, because the form would be too cluttered."

Surely, if we are to make sure that the question is seen to be voluntary, it must be evident to all those answering it that they can do so purely on a voluntary basis. Therefore, that information must appear in bold and next to the question.

Mr. Tyrie

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he is labouring under a misapprehension. Answering the question is not voluntary; it is compulsory.

Mr. MacShane

Look in the Bill.

Mr. Tyrie

I have the Bill in front of me and it is clear that recipients will have to fill in the form. That will be compulsory. The only difference between this and all the other requirements is that no penalty will be imposed if one does not respond to this one. It is compulsory to fill in the questionnaire.

Mr. Davey

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of playing with semantics. Everyone's understanding, including that of the Government and statistics officials, is that it will be a voluntary question. If there is any legal doubt about that, he will have to make his point rather more persuasively than he has just done. My reading of the provision that he drew to my attention is quite the opposite of his.

Mr. Tyrie

rose

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

rose

Mr. Davey

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

Mr. Heath

I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It is not a voluntary question, as has repeatedly been said. The person filling in the census form is required to provide the information. What will be removed is the sanction against the person who fails to fill in that question. That is a significant point.

Mr. Davey

I am afraid that, on this rare occasion, I disagree with my hon. Friend. It is not a compulsory question, because there is no penalty for failing to provide the information. I find it difficult to believe that a question is compulsory if there is no compulsion on the individual.

Mr. Tyrie

That is the crux of the matter and explains why it is an absurd Bill. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), it is a unique case. We have never before had primary legislation with another clause attached to it that says that there will be no penalty for disobeying the primary legislation. That is an extraordinary situation. If the provision were genuinely voluntary, why cannot it be made clear on the face of the Bill that it is voluntary?

Mr. Davey

I can only reiterate my argument that the question cannot be compulsory if there is no penalty for not answering it.

I want, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, the Government to give assurances that the census form will clearly state that the question is voluntary. Moreover, I want the Government's assurance that, after the 2001 census, they will review how that voluntary question has worked in practice. I would be worried if the question were to be automatically attached to every future census. The Government must reconsider the matter after the 2001 census.

Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I am also concerned about whether the Bill is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government are not required to state whether private Members' Bills are compatible, so I hope that the Economic Secretary will, for the record, reassure us that the Bill is compatible.

The benefits for which the Bill's promoters have argued, in this place and in the other place, are real. The information can help us to attack racial disadvantage and discrimination. If we can ensure that the right of the individual to withhold that information from the state is protected, by making the question voluntary, we can have the benefits without the costs to which other hon. Members have referred.

11.2 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

The process in which we are now engaged is irregular, and it gives me grounds for believing that this has almost certainly been a Government Bill right from the start, but in a practice that we have now become used to, it is being smuggled through in the guise of a private Member's Bill.

I am strengthened in that view when I read what the Leader of the House said last Thursday. She admitted that the Bill's position is unusual and said that Governments do not usually find time for private Members' Bills. She went on, with the casual arrogance that we have come to expect from the Government, to say: However, the Bill is believed to be uncontroversial. What right the Leader of the House has to say that such a Bill is uncontroversial is quite beyond me, as she had no means of knowing what were the views of Members of this House. We have become all too used to such attitudes; the Government simply glibly assume that a Bill such as this is uncontroversial.

The Leader of the House went on to claim that the Bill went through the House of Lords without any difficulty. As we have already heard, a significant amendment was made to the Bill in the House of Lords because many of the Members of the other place expressed disquiet about a fundamental aspect of it. For the Leader of the House to claim that the Bill is uncontroversial and went through the other place without any difficulty strikes me as not only extraordinary, but rather typical of the Government's attitude to the legislative process and to this House and the other House.

The Leader of the House also said of the Bill: The issue it addresses was raised after the main census legislation had gone through. How careless—the Government had obviously taken their eye off the ball. She added that there was no reason to anticipate that there would be a difficulty in the House of Commons. I am generally an admirer of the right hon. Lady, but on this occasion her judgment of the House was inexplicably flawed. She should have known that such a Bill would be highly controversial in the House of Commons, as it has turned out to be, and I shall explain why.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Before my right hon. Friend gets into the main part of his argument, he referred to remarks made by the Leader of the House. Despite making those remarks, she said shortly after: The matter is one in which there is considerable public interest—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1106.] Surely that is the case and surely it is perfectly reasonable to have a full debate on the matter tonight.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because later I shall expand on the nature of that public interest, which I find sinister. First, during my preliminary remarks I want to refer to the explanatory notes which, apart from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), are all the guidance we have. The provenance of those notes might be interesting for the House to consider. Usually, explanatory notes are prepared by the Government to help us to understand a Government Bill, but here we have what look suspiciously like Government explanatory notes, except that they allegedly explain a private Member's Bill.

Perhaps my hon. Friend—were he to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—or even the Minister might tell us exactly what is the relationship between the Bill, the Government and the Bill's promoters in the other place and in this House. Does not it seem odd that a private Member's Bill should be graced by explanatory notes that bear all the imprints of the civil service? However, let us simply take the explanatory notes at face value. Here we must look for the background to the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. Paragraph 3 says: Central government, local and health authorities, commercial business and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively. That perfectly straightforward preamble lays the ground as to why we might want information of the sort that the census would provide. Paragraph 4 says: The Government, in particular, needs this kind of information to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and to distribute resources effectively to local and health authorities to enable them to direct resources to where they are needed. In a moment, we shall see that people's religious beliefs will be relevant to the formation of policy, the planning of services for specific groups and the distribution of resources. We are now deep into the real meaning behind the Bill, which appears to be that the Government intend taxpayers' money and Government planning to be directed to religious groups and to people's religious faith.

Mr. Fabricant

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on precisely how the Government will allocate resources on health? After all, was it not Shakespeare's character Shylock who said: If you prick us, do we not bleed? Surely people are human beings whether they are Jewish, Hindu, Christian or anything else. In health terms, what, precisely, is the difference?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend asks a good question. Later, I shall want to consider the interesting matter of how the Government will distribute resources or make policy for people who write "None" when a census form asks their religion, but I am now considering the preliminaries because I want to help the House and myself to understand exactly what the Government think they are about with these measures.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is conversant with the Treasury document "The 2001 Census of Population", but the rest of the House may not be. There is a definite difference in emphasis in paragraph 26 on page 8, which says: The topics proposed for the Census are those that have been shown to be most needed by central and local government, the health service, academics, businesses and professional organisations. What interpretation does he put on that?

Mr. Forth

That raises a question similar to that which I am posing about the formation of Government policy. What those different bodies in their different ways would do were they given the information that would flow from those questions is a matter for speculation and one to which we must all turn our minds. However, I am even more worried to read in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes that answers to the question would help provide information which would supplement the output from the ethnic group question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian sub-continent. In turn, this will provide baseline figures against which the Government can monitor possible racial disadvantage and social exclusion within particular minority groups. That immediately leads to interesting speculation about the Government's perception—or that of the Bill's promoters—of the necessary connection between ethnicity and religious belief. Such an assumption is not only arrogant but dangerous.

Proposed question 10 on the census form will refer to Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh. Will it be assumed that Buddhists are from one ethnic group? Are not there white Buddhists and white Muslims? Those who devised the question show great arrogance in assuming that ethnicity and religious belief fall neatly into the same category. If they do not believe that, the aim that is set out in paragraph 8 is nonsense.

Mr. Edward Davey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a separate ethnicity question in the census?

Mr. Forth

That may well be, but unless one can cross-reference ethnicity and religion, the measure is meaningless because paragraph 8 makes an explicit connection between ethnicity and religious belief. I do not believe that policies should be formed or resources distributed on the basis of religious affiliation. I challenge that assumption, and I shall revert to it later.

For the moment, I simply stress that I reject the causal connection that paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes attempts to make. To make a connection between religious faith, based on information that people are prepared to reveal, and Government policy on the distribution of resources is not only dubious practice, but an intrusion into the most private of personal matters: religious faith.

Before we consider that, we must get to the bottom of whether answering the question is voluntary. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked that question, but failed to deal with it satisfactorily. Let us consider the general proposition that the census form makes it clear that it is compulsory to answer all questions. People will approach the census form on that basis, unless it includes a disclaimer such as that which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned. His question remains valid and I hope that we shall receive a comprehensive and satisfactory answer from the Minister.

It is not enough to say that proposed new section (1A) states that no person shall be liable to a penalty … for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars … That simply means that the penalties that apply in relation to the rest of the census form would not apply to the question about religion.

Mr. Hogg

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the provisions of the Census Act 1920 as amended by the Bill? Failure to answer the question would be an offence that was not attended by a penalty.

Mr. Forth

That puts the individual who completes the form in an odd position.

Mr. Sayeed

Perhaps I can clear up the point. The front page of the census form contains a section entitled "Completing your form". I shall read it out for the edification of my right hon. Friend. It states: Completion of the Census form is compulsory under the Census Act 1920. If you refuse to complete it, or give false information, you may be liable to a fine. This liability does not apply to Question 10 on religion.

Mr. Forth

That may provide the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. It may be helpful; that is for other hon. Members to decide.

If there is no compulsion to answer the question, that will almost certainly undermine the validity of the question and its ability to achieve the stated policy objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. If some people are prepared to answer the question but others are not, because they think it is intrusive and arrogant, which is my view, or because they are embarrassed, or because they are too idle to do so—the reason could be any or all of these—the resulting disproportionality and unrepresentativeness threaten to undermine the purpose of the Bill.

Let us speculate for a moment that people who would generally describe themselves as Christian do not feel obliged, or do not feel it necessary, to divulge the fact that they are Christian to the Government, whereas those who are Muslim are anxious to divulge that fact to the Government because their community leaders have told them, "If we can make sure that as many Muslims as possible answer the question and are therefore recorded in terms of their numbers, we have read in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes to the Bill that we will gets lots of resources because there are lots of us." That, presumably, is the aim behind the Bill, and that would be the motivation for particular groups—I pick Muslims more or less at random—to fill out the form.

Do Christians suppose that resources will be allocated to them on the basis of their answers on the census form? That is a question which I hope the Minister will answer. It flows directly from paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes dealing with the formation of policy and the allocation of resources. What assumptions can I make about the allocation of resources to Christians, following the census? I should like to know the answer. Presumably, if we are living in an even-handed, non-discriminatory society, as the Government would like us to think, there can be no distortion of distribution across the groups. If that is the case, I am not sure that I see the point of asking the question.

Matters get worse than that. Although the question proposed seeks to distinguish between Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, it lumps all the Christians together, for some peculiar reason. Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations are all assumed to be the same. Does that apply to Jehovah's Witnesses, for example—I take another example, more or less at random—or to any other sect or denomination that would generally be described as Christian, but may well have very different views, needs, communities or places in society?

Why are the Christians discriminated against by all being lumped together, while we take great care to make sure that Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims are treated separately? It is all very odd.

Mr. Gray

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is making a good point. Is it not also peculiar that in the census question, the word "Protestant" is used alongside the term "Church of England"? The Church of England is a Protestant sect, but a great many other Protestant sects are not listed. There is a curious anomaly in the wording of the question, which shows ignorance or lack of care on the part of the Government in wording it.

Mr. Forth

I shall leave those much better versed in matters theological to speculate on what such differences might mean. It is self-evident that there is probably as big a difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant aspects of the Christian religion as, say, there may be between Buddhism and Hinduism.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

I am concerned at the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of non-Christian religions. There is no suggestion that, for example, Muslims should be asked whether they are Sunnis or Ahmadiyas. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking about beliefs within a faith system. Christianity is an overall faith system. There is no suggestion that there should be sub-divisions of other faith systems either. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims are part of the same faith system is offensive to many people.

Mr. Forth

I am not sure that that is what I said at all. I said the reverse: that, whereas the question seeks to distinguish between all those faiths, it lumps all the Christian denominations together.

Mr. Swayne

The distinction to which the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has drawn attention—between Sunni Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims or whatever—is the critical information that is required to deliver the promises to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes. It is the information on those minorities within what the hon. Lady quaintly called "faith systems" that determines whether they are disadvantaged.

Mr. Forth

I should have thought that that was almost self-evidently the case, but apparently it is not to the hon. Lady.

I do not accept the objectives in paragraph 8, because I do not believe that possible racial disadvantage and so-called social exclusion within particular minority groups will be dealt with by the answers that may voluntarily be given to the question outlined in paragraph 10. I simply do not accept that paragraph 10 can deliver the objectives of paragraph 8, quite apart from the fact that it is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion by the state into some of the most private aspects of people's lives. All of that is entirely unsatisfactory. I still hope that we shall get an answer later from the Minister as to why it is believed that racial disadvantage and social exclusion can somehow be determined by the answer to the question in paragraph 10. I see no necessary or obvious relationship between racial or ethnicity distinctions and those set out in paragraph 10—none, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh. I just do not see the connection.

In almost every single respect, this Bill fails all the tests. It fails the test of our historic desire to keep the state and the Government out of people's private, personal and, in particular, religious lives. It fails its own test of the dubious objectives set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the explanatory notes. It fails the test because it seeks to make the answering of the questions voluntary instead of compulsory, and therefore almost certainly undermines any purpose that it might have had.

The Bill is unnecessary and intrusive. It has some sinister elements, which I believe we should resist strongly. Unless we hear some persuasive answers to these questions from the Minister at the end of the debate, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.23 pm

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)

I simply want to use this opportunity to give some examples of how this kind of information could improve the lives of a substantial number of people in my constituency. I also thought that it might illuminate and teach some hon. Members about why this exercise is worth while.

Let us take, for example, the Muslim faith. For people of that faith, an important and deeply held part of their religion is to bury the dead swiftly. One of the problems faced by Muslims in Slough is that they cannot get deaths registered over the weekend. That causes my constituents deep offence and distress.

The results of a census such as this could inform the planning of registrars of births, marriages and deaths, so that they could ensure that death certificates were issued, deaths were registered and burials could take place at weekends.

Mr. Fabricant

Is the hon. Lady aware that a similar rule exists within the Jewish religion? She will know that there have been Jews in the United Kingdom for at least 1,000 years. Does she realise that Jewish burials have taken place despite the fact that this Bill has not been enacted?

Fiona Mactaggart

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Jewish organisations support the Bill, partly because of the problems that members of that faith have experienced in ensuring that burials take place swiftly enough.

Mr. Fabricant

That is absolute rubbish—and I know it. [Laughter.]

Mr. Tyrie

The hon. Lady made a serious and important point about the burying of the dead in the Muslim community. There is a practical solution—putting registrars in the hospitals. I have given some thought to the matter; some expense would be involved, but there might also be some saving. Anyway, it is not a laughing matter. What the hon. Lady must explain is why it is essential to organise a census establishing people's religious faith to solve that practical problem.

Fiona Mactaggart

I am afraid that services are currently planned on the basis of what people think others believe, rather than on the basis of what people know about others' beliefs. I think that a census giving real evidence of such knowledge could ensure that services meet the differing needs of people who have different beliefs.

Another factor would affect another group in my constituency, in a slightly different way. I refer to the police training budget. Members of the Sikh religion who observe the five Ks carry knives with them. I have encountered cases in which young police officers, new to Slough, have arrested young men who have been carrying knives as part of their religious belief. That does not happen in the case of more experienced police officers, because they recognise that in the circumstances of the faith the person carrying the weapon is not, in fact, carrying a weapon, but is carrying a religious artefact.

Mr. Hogg

That is a problem of bad training. If the hon. Lady consults the legislation that makes it an offence to carry a sharp-bladed instrument, she will find that there is a specific exemption in respect of those who carry such instruments as part of their faith.

Fiona Mactaggart

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that that is not a high priority in police officers' training in his constituency, whereas it must be a high priority in Slough police officers' training. My point is that police training authorities should be able to target their training appropriately, where it is most needed.

We need information that can ensure that services of all kinds are better shaped to meet the needs of the diverse communities that form our whole community. No one is suggesting that particular faiths should receive state subventions. We are trying to ensure that state services developed in a Christian tradition, which match the habits of the Christian faith, begin to match more fairly and accurately the beliefs and habits of other faiths. If we do that, we can ensure that members of minority faiths feel truly a part of our whole community, feel that their faiths and beliefs are respected, and feel that they can truly participate. If we fail to do that, we shall fail to meet their needs.

11.28 pm

Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)

I think that all censuses constitute an intrusion into our private lives, and that all censuses require considerable justification. A summary of a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights agrees. It states: The compulsory requirement to provide information to a census (including sex, marital status, place of birth) —incidentally, religion is not mentioned— was found to be an interference with private and family life. The summary said that that could be justified in certain circumstances relating to the public good, but the public good must be justified thoroughly and carefully, and I am not sure that it has in the case of adding religion to the census.

I have not yet heard a convincing argument—certainly not from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—for what we shall gain from the addition of religion; nor do I fully understand where the pressure has come from. I have a hint of a suspicion that some religious groups may hope that, for example, they can obtain the resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), or can gain access to schools devoted exclusively to their faith, such as Church of England and Roman Catholic schools do now. However, I am only guessing. I still have not heard clearly what the real reason for adding the question is.

Mr. Maclean

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Muslim Council of Britain strongly supports the question on the ground that there is a social time bomb ticking away unless something is done now for the more equitable allocation of public services and better planning on matters such as community relations, health care, education, employment and housing. It certainly believes that the question will allow the Government to direct money and funding to it.

Mr. Tyrie

My hon. Friend has firmed up my suspicion.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend raised the question of whether the census might be used to allocate funds to schools, but surely the only schools that are divided according to religion are Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in England and in Scotland. That is the only question that the census specifically fails to ask. It does not count the number of Roman Catholics compared with the number of Protestants; it counts merely the number of Christians. There is no provision at the moment for schools of other faiths.

Mr. Tyrie

On the face of it, that may also be a good point, but I would need to think a little more carefully before being absolutely sure.

Mr. Sayeed

rose

Mr. Swayne

rose

Mr. Tyrie

If I may, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) in a moment. I should like to give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

Mr. Swayne

The objective may be to identify social exclusion so as to be able to target resources better, but I do not believe that the information that is being asked for will provide the quality of information to be able to deliver that objective. Surely, the most disadvantaged group in the Muslim community is the Bahais. Therefore, one would wish to know where they were located and how many of them there were. The proposal will not deliver that.

Mr. Tyrie

That is a powerful and persuasive point and further points us in the direction of saying that the information will not be valuable.

Mr. Sayeed

I entirely refute the suggestion that the Bill has been promoted on behalf solely of the Muslim community. It is true that the Muslims have supported it, but so have the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Hindus and the Sikhs.

Mr. Tyrie

I believe that the Jewish community is divided on the matter. Indeed, I was approached by a member of that community about the Bill, who first alerted me to take an interest in it. It would be wrong to suggest that there is uniform and full support from all sections of those faiths.

Furthermore, if I were a Jew, having seen what has happened in the past century, I would be deeply concerned at the idea that there should be an identification of Jews in that way in a census.

Several hon

. Members rose

Mr. Tyrie

I shall give way in a moment.

In a free society such as we live in at the moment, everyone, including all Jews, can rest assured that they will not find themselves disadvantaged in any way by providing such information, but, historically, some ethnic and religious groups, particularly the Jewish community, have suffered greatly from being so identified. I can well imagine that that served as one of the reasons why many people in the Jewish community are concerned about the matter.

Mr. Hogg

May I raise the following point with my hon. Friend? If indeed the question is designed primarily to channel resources to particular groups, does he understand that many of us who represent the rural areas will suspect that the resources will be channelled to the inner cities and away from the rural areas? That is a matter that concerns all of those who represent the countryside.

Mr. Tyrie

That is another interesting point, which may well be right. Again, I would want to think about it more carefully before being absolutely sure.

Several hon

. Members rose

Mr. Tyrie

I will give way one more time. If the House will forgive me, I give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

Mr. Edward Davey

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in July 1999, the Board of Deputies of British Jews voted overwhelmingly for the inclusion of the question in the census?

Mr. Tyrie

I was aware of that, but I stand by the points that I made. It is not true that the whole of the Jewish community overwhelmingly supports the proposal. Many in that community do not.

Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way, I think, six or seven times. There are not many things that I want to say. It seems that almost everyone else is getting their speeches into mine. However, I shall do my best to make the few further points that I wanted to make.

I think that many of the points that we have just heard made in interventions have slowly dawned on those who originally supported the Bill. I think that that is why the Bill has been curiously amended to include subsection (2), which suggests that people will not pay a penalty if they do not comply with subsection (1). I can only assume that the change has been made because those who support the Bill have realised that, as I believe, the Bill goes a step too far in demanding in a census information on religious belief.

There has been some discussion—I should like to clarify the point once and for all—about whether this is a compulsory measure. Some hon. Members have said that it is a voluntary measure.

Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie

No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already given way seven or eight times—[HoN. MEMBERS: "To Opposition Members"]—and I had better move on. Initially, only Opposition Members sought to intervene. However, in view of that demand, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Taylor

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being susceptible to persuasion. As no penalty is associated with the failure or refusal to supply the information specified in the Bill, could the hon. Gentleman give his definition of compulsion? As providing the information would be a voluntary act, to which compulsory element does he so object?

Mr. Tyrie

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had controlled himself for a moment, because I was about to deal with precisely that point. I am holding a copy of the Census Act 1920, which makes it absolutely clear that it is an offence not to fill in the questionnaire in full. The Bill makes it equally clear that religion will be added to the schedule listing the questions that it will be an offence not to answer. However, although not answering the question will be an offence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, there will not be a penalty for not answering it. It will be a unique case in English law.

Mr. David Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyrie

No. I should like to make a little bit progress in my speech.

Mr. David Taylor

On that very point.

Mr. Tyrie

No. I have given way, I think, eight times, and I really should like to make some progress.

Extraordinarily, although it is an offence not to fill in the census, in this specific case, no penalty will be applied to those who fail to provide the information. Earlier, I inquired whether such a bizarre state of affairs existed anywhere else in British primary law. I sought an answer to that question from the Library and from a professor of law at London university no one could tell me of one example in primary English law in which a legal duty is imposed for the first time on people but the civil penalty for non-compliance is waived. It is very curious state of affairs.

I do not like this Bill, which is unnecessarily intrusive. In principle, I do not like censuses, which I am not sure necessarily gather much information of value, although I acknowledge that some public good can come from them. I have not been convinced by anything that I have heard yet in this debate that anything of benefit would come from adding religion to the 1920 Act.

11.38 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

I hope that, having established the principle of dealing with private Members' Bills in Government time, Ministers will make Government time available for consideration of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which deals with a matter of deep significance for Opposition Members.

I rise with some trepidation to say that Opposition Front Benchers support the Bill. However, I hasten to tell my hon. Friends—at least I hope that they are still my hon. Friends—that they have a free vote in this matter.

Mr. Hogg

We always have a free vote. We are paid for our opinion—nobody else's.

Mr. Ottaway

The reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has a free vote is so that he may express his opinions, and I shall come to those in a second.

We recognise that certain information is necessary to achieve the objective of good government. For example, we agree with the statements in paragraph 64 of the White Paper that the information could be of help in identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, especially those originating from the Indian sub-continent, a point made by right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It may be of interest to the House to know that such a question is already included in the census in Northern Ireland, where the information is used to help in the monitoring of equality policies.

I share my hon. Friends' concerns about the dubious benefit that is to be derived from the legislation, but that is not a reason for not trying. If there is some benefit to be derived from the information, it is worth having, and that is why—on balance—we support the Bill. However, I have listened closely to what my hon. Friends have said and, if it is felt appropriate to move amendments to cover those points in Committee, we shall not hesitate to do so.

Mr. Gray

In Northern Ireland, the census asks for a distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants, which information is important in the delivery of proper government in Northern Ireland. If the census is to aid the delivery of proper government on the mainland of Great Britain, can my hon. Friend tell us by what mechanism Government aid can possibly be allocated to any religious group on the basis of the information gained? The answer is not through the standard spending assessment, which takes account of race.

Mr. Ottaway

I shall come to the proposed question, but the issue of what is done with the information is a matter for the person who assesses it and tries to make a decision on what will be done with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) alluded to the important point about whether much of the census can be replaced by market research. The census will cost the enormous sum of £254 million and I strongly suspect that much of the information gleaned from it is available from market research companies. The level of detail in the data that are held by private companies is remarkable. What is more, it is held on a postcode basis, which enables business and anybody else who wishes to to analyse the data. As usual, business is far ahead of Government and while we do not quarrel with the need for a census in 2001, an analysis should be made before the next census in 2011 of how much can be obtained from the private sector instead of through the lumbering process of the census.

Mr. David Taylor

The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing the theory that successive censuses are less valuable because market research organisations can provide alternative information. Would it astonish him to learn that much of the information that market research companies collect is rooted in the information collected in the census?

Mr. Ottaway

That may or may not be right, but much of the information is also obtained from examining the size of a person's house. Aerial photography plays an important part in assessing the wealth and prosperity of a particular region. I am not sure whether market research, which is being done not on a yearly, monthly or weekly basis, but on a daily basis, can wait 10 years for the next census.

The organisation Christian Research estimates that 65 per cent of the UK is Christian and that non-Christian religions comprise 8 per cent, with at least 27 per cent of the country being agnostic. That information is available already, before the need for a census. It leads to the very important point made by the National Secular Society, that if, for example, the census shows that 65 per cent. have indicated that they are Christian, one could get an inflated idea of the numbers of religious adherents. There is a very big difference between being a member of a particular religion and a follower of that religion, and the answer would not address the difference. That is an important point, which we shall raise in Committee.

With the Churches' attendances falling rapidly, those ticking the "None" box could quite conceivably be the largest category. It would be interesting to compare those professing to have a religion with attendance at places of worship.

I now come to the question of compulsion. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred a great deal to the speech of Lord Stoddart in the other place. If I had been Lord Stoddart I would have made exactly the same speech at the time. It was based on the fact that the Bill before the other place did not have the no-liability element that we have in the Bill today. In fact, it was a matter of some surprise to us that on Second Reading in the other place the Government argued for compulsion and for a fine. We welcome the fact that they have revised that view.

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend is only partly right about that. Obviously, the fact that failure to respond is not an offence punishable by a penalty is an improvement, but the point that the noble Lord was making was that this information, whether given voluntarily or as a result of compulsion, could be of value to certain people, and he cited governments headed by somebody like Hitler. That was his broad point: that it could be used by a discriminating Government. He was not focusing particularly on whether disclosure was voluntary or compulsory.

Mr. Ottaway

I do not quarrel with that proposition, but if answering the question is voluntary—I shall come to the voluntary nature in a moment—it is a matter of choice for an individual whether or not he fills in the answer. Obviously, he will be aware of the consequences of doing so, and will have to accept the consequences.

Mr. Tyrie

Does my hon. Friend accept that if it is clearly indicated that a response is voluntary, the value of the information collected will be greatly diminished?

Mr. Ottaway

I suspect that that is right, but my hon. Friend knows as well as I do that an opinion poll based on, I think, 1,050 people is fairly accurate. If, say, 10 million out of a population of 50 million fill in the answer, it will be a fair guide to what is happening in society as a whole.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)

Is not the truth of the matter that most followers of faiths are proud of their faith, and are therefore more likely to respond to the question than not? Those who do not will be those with no particular interest.

Mr. Ottaway

I think that that is right, but I repeat that it is a matter of choice as to whether an individual answers the question. It is impossible for us to try to second-guess here tonight exactly how these data will work out, but I repeat what I said at the outset, which is that that is not a reason for not trying. That is why we support the measure.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way a second time, and I am grateful to him. Does he not agree that the fact that the individual may or may not be proud of his particular religion is not at all a good reason for the state to collect statistics about how many people are in that religion? It is of absolutely no relevance. One might as well say, "I'm proud of my very active sex life" and therefore put that in the census—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I am not.

Mr. Ottaway

The House might be interested in my hon. Friend's sex life, but a discussion of that could fall foul of what you might have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: pride is irrelevant, but people who fill in the box do so out of personal choice, whatever the reasons may be. That is a principle to which the Conservative party very much subscribes.

My noble Friend Lord Weatherill moved an amendment to his Bill in the other place to remove the liability point. We agree with his sentiment that the arguments about a voluntary question should be taken seriously. Religion and religious belief are private matters. So are political beliefs, which is why we have secret ballots. Ballot forms are completed in confidence and according to personal choice.

In our judgment, it is essential that no one should be liable to a penalty for refusing or declining to answer the question. If the Bill did not make that exemption, it would not have the support of the Conservative party. The draft census forms states that it is compulsory to complete the census and that failure to do so attracts a fine. It adds that the liability does not apply to question 10, on religion, which covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.

We welcome the removal of the fine, but consider that a note to that effect should be printed next to the question on religion in the census form. That would make it absolutely clear that the question is voluntary and that failure to answer it carries no penalty. We will table an amendment to that effect in Committee. If the Census Act 1920 has to be amended to address the point, that will be at the heart of the amendment. Some people do not read the small print on the front of the census form, and the voluntary nature of the question should be made plain for all to see.

Mr. Hogg

May I encourage my hon. Friend to go down the road that he is outlining? He will know that the document to which he has referred is only a draft, and that it is authorised by statutory instrument. Therefore, should not what appears by statutory instrument be set out on the face of the Bill? Only by that means can the House get the reassurance that it seeks.

Mr. Ottaway

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which I should like to take time to consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the wording of the question, which appears in full in paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. It makes it clear that the word "Christian" includes Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations. As my hon. Friend says, that puts "Church of England" in a different category from "Protestant" and is therefore inaccurate and clumsy. The term "Protestant" is an umbrella term and is not a denomination in itself, as the question suggests. The "Oxford English Dictionary" defines the word as pertaining to a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. It is clear that the distinction is between Catholic and Protestant, and that the term "Church of England" should be included in the term "Protestant". Unless the Economic Secretary wants an enormous postbag on the matter, I suggest that she considers that point very seriously.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend said that we know what the question on religion will be because it is set out in the explanatory notes. I remind him that such notes do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading tonight, there is no guarantee that the words that appear in the notes will appear in the census.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which gives the Government a good opportunity to reflect on the point that I have just made.

After this census, the Government will arguably have a fairly accurate picture of the religious breakdown of the communities of England and Wales. In October 1999, the other place considered the possibility of legislation against religious discrimination. There is a slight whiff in all this that some law might follow on religious discrimination. Summing up for the Government in that debate, Lord Bassam said that he was waiting for the results of research commissioned by the university of Derby before making any further decisions. I should be grateful if, some nine months later, the Minister could enlighten us as to whether the matter has progressed at all, whether the research is available and whether the Government have any preliminary thoughts on the matter.

This is a Bill for England and Wales. It seems right and proper to us that such a sensitive matter, which affects only the people of England and Wales, should be decided only by Members of Parliament representing seats in England and Wales. The 2001 census in Scotland will be the first for which the Scottish Parliament has had a legislative responsibility. Experience shows that religious attitudes north of the border can vary from those south of the border. This is a thoroughly appropriate matter for this Parliament to decide in England and Wales, and for the Scottish Parliament to decide in Scotland. Just as I do not for one minute seek to interfere in the Scottish process, I trust that Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats will not seek to interfere in this Bill.

This is a small but important measure and it has the Conservative party's support.

11.57 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has already referred to the echoes that the Bill will have in the memories of some older people in the United Kingdom. In 1934, the German Government introduced legislation to include a clause in their census information asking for the religion of their subjects. My hon. Friend is right to say that the position in the United Kingdom is, thank God, nothing like that which existed in Germany then and, please God, it never will be.

Having listened to the debate, I can see no real reason for this information to be requested. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that it would give us a better understanding of the different needs of religious communities. I do not agree with her.

Fiona Mactaggart

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant

In a moment. I agree that it is important to understand the needs of Hindus, Muslimswhether they be Shi'ite or Sunni—and orthodox, reform or liberal Jews. However, I do not understand—and perhaps the hon. Lady will elucidate this for me—how information from the census will help us to understand better the working of individual religions in this country and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Fiona Mactaggart

It will not help us to understand different religions. It will inform us where observers of various religions live so that we can ensure that public services in those areas fit their needs.

Mr. Fabricant

I thank the hon. Lady for her answer, but I still do not follow her logic. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has now left the Chamber—which is oh so typical of the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Oh, he is there; he has moved. The hon. Gentleman said that it would help us better to provide food. I think that he was alluding to halal and kosher food. Again, I do not see his point, because whether halal or kosher food is available is determined not by the religion one was brought up in or adheres to, but what one chooses to buy in a shop. There are halal shops and kosher shops because Jewish people and Muslim people—[Interruption.] Ministers may laugh and mock, but they know nothing about the Jewish or Muslim religions. If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) wants to intervene, I would be happy for him to do so. The point is that the shops exist simply because there is a demand for them. Kosher shops have existed for hundreds of years, and halal shops for more than 80 or 90 years. They did not come into existence because of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg

In response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), may I say that the Bill means that the police force would be informed from the census about where the Sikh community exists? I should rather expect the police in Slough to know that Sikhs live in Slough.

Mr. Fabricant

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. I began by saying that some would hear an echo of the days of 1934 when the German Government took a census. The last thing that those who remember that period will want is for the police to know where particular religious communities exist.

Several hon. Members have mentioned that an overwhelming majority of the Board of Deputies of British Jews supports the Bill. Those Members have suggested that that means that the Jewish community supports it, but their argument is fallacious in the extreme. My pair, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has rightly pointed out many times—he is not always right, but he often is—that the board rarely speaks for the Jewish population. Many Jews will feel—perhaps unreasonably, but they will feel it none the less—disquiet about this sort of information being included in a British Bill.

To my mind, the Bill is very un-British. I cannot see what it is intended to achieve. I cannot see what help it will give to health care, social service provision or anything else provided by the state if we simply know the percentage of Jews, Christians or Buddhists among the total population.

Mr. Leigh

We are trickling around the issue. I have a great deal of sympathy for Muslims who want schools funded by the state as schools are funded for Catholics, Jews or members of the Church of England. Would it not be honest to admit that therein lies the real purpose behind the Bill? The Muslim community wants to be identified as a significant minority in certain areas so that it may argue for its own schools and facilities. Why not just admit that instead of trying to pretend that there is some bigger or wider issue?

Mr. Fabricant

I shall not go down that road, except to say that Muslim schools can be set up, provided that the people involved accept that non-Muslims must be able to attend, as with Jewish, Church of England and Catholic schools, and that the national curriculum is adhered to. In addition, if most of the teaching is in English, there is no reason why Muslim schools cannot be state funded.

Mr. Leigh

You do not need a census to know that.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend is quite right.

I do not think that the Bill is a healthy one. Nor, from a legal point of view, is it elegant. I ask the Minister for an assurance that a clear statement will appear alongside the question saying that, although it is compulsory to answer—it is compulsory to answer all census questions—no penalty will attach to people who do not. Many people, particularly Muslims or those who have recently entered the country—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member, Mr. MacShane, who has changed his name for a reason that I do not understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that we use moderate language in argument in the House; I do not like the way that he is going.

Mr. Fabricant

I wanted to point out only that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) tries to demonstrate that we should be open, yet, for some reason, he is ashamed of his original name. I find that strange and I do not understand it. Many people might suggest that it would be sensible for me to change the name Fabricant—it does not fit easily on a poster, but I see no reason to change. However, we digress—(HoN. MEMBERS: "What was the hon. Gentleman's name?"] It was an elegant and proud Polish name. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should have changed it. Perhaps he thought that there was discrimination in the Labour party and that by adopting a Scottish name—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have heard quite enough of that from the hon. Gentleman. Has he finished his speech?

Mr. Fabricant

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to discriminate against the hon. Member for Rotherham—just as I do not want the Government to discriminate against members of the community who feel that they would be prejudiced by giving information of the type required by the Bill.

I ask the Minister to undertake that the question will be followed by a statement that no penalty will be attracted by failure to answer it. I hope that she will bear in mind the fact that many of the people filling in the census will be new immigrants. Because of that, they may not have a good command of the English language. The statement needs to be made plainly and clearly so that there is no misunderstanding—[Interruption.] The Minister claims that she does not understand what I am saying. If she goes out into the community, she will find that many people—including older people who have lived in this country for many years, as well as immigrants—are unable to read six-point text.

There must be a clear statement that there will be no penalty for not answering the question. If the Minister gives that undertaking, perhaps I shall not vote against the Bill.

12.7 am

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

An important principle has always lain beneath the good governance of the United Kingdom, but not beneath that of states such as the old Russia and present-day China; it is that the state should not have unnecessary information about private individuals. That is an extremely important principle: the state should know only what it needs to know about particular people.

That principle is upheld in many aspects of government—many of which have been advanced by Labour—for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. The whole principle behind that measure is to ensure that information about individuals is not known unless it is absolutely necessary. The same point applies to the Freedom of Information Bill. The Government will provide much information and will tell individuals what they know about them.

We have always espoused those important principles in this country. They were never espoused by totalitarian states—under Hitler, or in Russia or China. The fundamental question behind the debate is: why should the state need to know people's precise religious affiliations—if they have them? As we have heard, about one third of the nation would state that they have no religious affiliation.

We are trying to address some important questions. Is it possible for the state to know that information? Is it useful statistical information? Can the census actually collect it? Even if it can be collected, will it be useful to the state?

There are some fundamental difficulties in respect of the collection of such statistical information. A significant number of people with a religious affiliation will choose—properly—not to answer the question. I should be one of them. I am very much a practising Christian, but I see no reason why the state should want to know that. It is a private matter. I attend my little church in Slaughterford on Sundays; I am a profound, practising Christian. I see no reason at all why the state should need to know that. I imagine that many people across the nation take precisely the position that their religion is a private matter between them and their God and there is no reason to declare it on a form.

Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin)

If answering the question is voluntary, the individual is at liberty to divulge that information if they choose. The hon. Gentleman has just done so and tomorrow's Hansard will record the faith that he follows and where he goes to church. What is the problem?

Mr. Gray

Neither of the hon. Gentleman's two points is particularly valid. The voluntary nature of the question is an important safeguard, but the Government's original drafting did not recognise that. It stated that information was compulsory and that people would go to prison or pay a fine if they did not answer. It was only thanks to amendments by my noble Friends in the other place that the voluntary element was introduced into the Bill.

If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the voluntary nature of the reply means that it does not matter, and if a large number of people will not answer, what is the point of the question in the first place?

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray

The debate has been rather broken up, when we should be thinking quietly and cooly about the logic behind the arguments. I came here tonight hoping to support the Bill—thinking, because of my convictions, that a question about religion would provide useful information. My remarks are the result of listening carefully, so I am reluctant to give way to many light-hearted interventions.

Mr. Foster

My question is not at all light hearted. Most faith groups seriously want to make their point. How will they have the opportunity to do so if not by this method? The provision provides an opportunity rather than imposing an obligation.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman made the point earlier that because people take pride in their religion and want the public to know that they are profoundly affected by it, a good way to do that is through the census—as some form of PR exercise for the promotion of particular religions. That is contrary to the basis of the 1920 Act.

There are many religious organisations of one sort or another. I was pleased to attend the Elim Pentecostal church in Chippenham last Friday, whose members would say, "We have plenty of ways of letting people know our faith. We do not need to tick a box on the census." That apart, I am not sure that is a proper use of public money and public information systems, simply so that faith groups can demonstrate pride in their faith. If it is, many other questions could be introduced to benefit particular groups—such as one about political affiliations. I am proud that I am a Conservative and there are many proud Conservatives across the nation. We ought to have a box on the form that asks, "Are you or are you not a Conservative?" That would give me the opportunity to demonstrate my pride in being one. I do not believe that pride in one's religious convictions is necessarily a good reason for including a question about it in the census.

Given that a large number of people will refuse to answer the only question to which a reply is voluntary, that would—many statisticians agree—reduce the value of the responses. Also, many people would react to the question off the top of their heads. When most people in the Army are asked in a form to give their religion, they put Church of England even though they have not been to church for many years. What does one put if one is a lapsed Roman Catholic or a Christian by baptism who has since adopted the Jewish faith? The question requires a factual answer, with no opportunity for commentary or remarks about the profundity of one's faith.

Mr. Sayeed

There is a write-in section associated with that particular question on the proposed form, which gives the opportunity to amplify one's reply.

May I make one further point? John Rickman, who was the Clerk to the House of Commons at the end of the 18th century, said that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Mr. Gray

I do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point about the Clerk to the House of Commons at the end of the 18th century who laid out 12 purposes for the census. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said the 19th century. However, if he checks, he will find that Mr. Rickman lived at the end of the 18th century. He laid out 12 purposes for the census, and, as my hon. Friend said, the first is that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the basis of legislation. That is the case and for 200 years not knowing people's religious faiths has not prevented us from having the intimate knowledge to form a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy. If my hon. Friend is saying that, under the Government of every political persuasion for the past 200 years, we have been a poor Parliament that does not know a rational basis for legislation and diplomacy, he is incorrect.

Mr. Sayeed

This will be my final intervention on my hon. Friend's speech. The point is that more people with faiths other than Christianity live in this country than did in the past. We are increasingly a multi-faith, multicultural society. Some people might not like that, but it is a fact.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is correct. I, for one, welcome that change in our society in comparatively recent years. That, in itself, is not necessarily an argument for increasing the number of questions on the census in the way that the Bill proposes; nor does it support what my hon. Friend said about the first purpose that the Clerk in the 18th century laid out for the census. Indeed, if, in the 18th century, the purpose of the census was to know about the nation, I do not understand why the fact that we are now a multi-faith society is particularly relevant.

Incidentally, I conform to the 70 per cent. of this nation who remain Christian and I am speaking in a Chamber that opens every day with a Christian form of worship. I suspect and hope that we will remain a largely Christian society.

Mr. Leigh

Much cant has been spoken in the debate and there has been a failure of honesty. The truth is that many Christians are nominal, lazy or will not fill in the form. The Muslim community, commendably from its point of view, is much keener and more vibrant and it is growing. Its members will fill out the form. Rightly, they are being pressed to do that by the Muslim community so that it can extend its influence in certain communities.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall come to it shortly.

My first point was that the statistical information that is collected is likely to be inaccurate. I have touched on two ways in which I think that it will be inaccurate, but there are many others that we could discuss. For example, there is an important omission in that it lumps all so-called Christians together and lists other faiths individually. Statistically, that is nonsense and I very much hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider changing that provision. It might be interesting to have information on denominations in the Christian faith around the nation. However, the census is likely to provide statistically unsatisfactory information.

Mr. Peter Bradley

The hon. Gentleman said that he was one of the 70 per cent. of the people of this country who are Christian. From what does he derive that information if it was not census or quasi-census material?

Mr. Gray

I was quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) who provided those figures. They may not be correct, and the information is anecdotal. It is important that the information should remain anecdotal, because there is no need for us in the Chamber to be able to say that 23,748,637 people are Christian and that 2 million are Muslim. There is no need for us to have that information; it is anecdotal. The Church of England does not know the figures for its membership, although the Church of Scotland has slightly better information on its membership because one has to sign up to become a member of that Church. However, many faiths do not know themselves how many members they have, and they do not have to know that. However, the Bill will introduce a new provision that will require the Government to know with precision and down to the last person how many people are members of each religion.

I said that 70 per cent. of the people of this country are Christian. That information is anecdotal and the figure may well be incorrect. The figure may be only 50 or 60 per cent., but that does not matter. The quality of people's faith is what matters, not the number of people who hold it. It is not about quantity, but about quality.

Mr. Fabricant

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gray

I am trying to make a little progress, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way now.

The statistical information that the question will produce is likely to be extremely inaccurate, anecdotal and, therefore, not particularly useful even to people on the left wing who love statistics. It does not surprise me that the statistical arguments for the question come from Labour Members, who love to have figures and to know the nitty-gritty details of what people do. Even to them, the statistics are likely to seem rather inaccurate. Certainly Christians, such as myself and others who consider what has been said during the debate, can make sure that the statistics are inaccurate by, in my case, putting myself down as nothing or as a Muslim or a Sikh, simply to undermine the value of the information.

Let us suppose for one second that, in Committee, the questionnaire or another part of the Bill is changed in such a way that the information would be 100 per cent. valid, although I cannot imagine how that would be done. Let us suppose, however, that after the 2001 census we know precisely how many people are Sikh, how many are Muslim, how many are members of the Wee Frees and how many are Roman Catholic. Now we move on to the second question, which is much more important: why should the state know that and what use will it make of the information?

The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who cares so much about religion in Slough that she is no longer in her place, made the point that Sikhs in Slough might be arrested unreasonably for carrying the ceremonial weapon that is required by their religion. I would hope that the Slough police are intelligent enough not to make such arrests, and if they are not, no amount of statistical production will make them more intelligent.

Moreover, as a Scot, I was wearing my kilt and skean-dhu in the Tate gallery and was questioned by a policeman about the knife down my sock, so I explained it sensibly to him. Finding out how many Sikhs there are to avoid their being arrested because of their ceremonial sword is about as sensible as finding out how many Scotsmen wearing kilts there are in London who might be arrested for wearing their skean-dhu. There is no sense in it at all. There is certainly no sense in a huge Government exercise such as this one to get round that particular difficulty concerning Sikhs.

My next point brings us to what some people believe to be the central purpose of finding out differences in religion, and that would be to allow the Government to allocate resources on the basis not of ethnicity, as they do at the moment, but of religion. The standard spending assessment has an ethnicity section, although I am not sure why. If a local authority has a high proportion of ethnic minorities, it will receive more money than those authorities that do not. That is a long-established principle of the division of the annual local government settlement. We have great debates about how important ethnicity is, and whether it is important if a local authority has more black or more Asians. All that is discussed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions every year when it is divvying up the SSA.

I have heard nobody in this debate suggest that the ethnicity section of the SSA may be changed because of religion. Nobody is saying that if many Asians turn out to be Christians rather than Muslims, the SSA should be changed to take account of their religion. Anyone who suggested that would be wrong. I can think of no reason at all for saying that someone's religious faith should lead to a change in the Government's allocation of resources.

Education has been mentioned, and the provision of education with special denominational interests may be a reason for acquiring that detailed information. However, Church of England and Roman Catholic schools make up by far the largest category of such education, and denomination is the one piece of information that the census would not provide. It would not tell us how many Roman Catholics, members of the Church of Scotland or Methodists there were, so it would not help.

My school, Glasgow high school, had a good ethnic mix, and we made provision for kosher lunches and the rabbi came in to take special services while my father, who was a minister, took the services on behalf of the Church of Scotland. That happened not because we knew the general statistics but because the pupils at my school were roughly 50 per cent. Jewish and 50 per cent. Church of Scotland, and it was a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Glasgow corporation played a large part in respect of the costs of education and took account of those percentages in providing school dinners. I am glad that it did, and a number of my Jewish friends greatly enjoyed that particularly outstanding feature of Glasgow high school. However, knowing how many Jewish people there were in Glasgow would not have affected the way in which kosher lunches were provided at Glasgow high school. That knowledge would not have provided added useful information to Glasgow corporation, which, by counting heads, knew perfectly well how to work out the provision of kosher lunches at my school.

So far, no Member has come up with a convincing reason why the delivery of Government services or public services in general would be improved by the Government having such information. In the absence of that positive upside, we must return to what I said at the beginning of these brief remarks: if the Government do not need to know, why should they know? I therefore challenge the Minister. He should not give us a lot of stuff about how many people from ethnic minorities we now have in this country, how many different religions we have, how interesting it would be to have such information or how proud people are to be members of a particular minority religion. We do not need to know any of that. We need to know only one thing: why should the Government have information, except when they need it? If they need this information, we need to know precisely why they need it and precisely by what means they would change the delivery of Government services as a result of having it.

Will the SSA system be changed? Will education provision be changed? Will the policing services be changed? How will the Government take account of the information? Which Government services will they change as a result of having it? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2, of course—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), finds that very funny. These are serious matters, although he finds it difficult to take them seriously. Perhaps that says more about him than about the debate. Perhaps he would like to intervene. I will happily give way, but I fear that he may not get to his feet.

The intellectual content of the debate may be above the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps his son, who attends Manchester grammar school, will get to know more about these matters. I hope that Manchester grammar school—one of the finest private schools in England, to which he has chosen to send his son—will take account of the different religions of its pupils. I also hope that he will think twice about laughing during future debates. He looks a little cross.

There are two fundamental problems: what use the Government will make of the information and the fact that it will be dodgy in the first place. The Minister must answer those questions precisely and specifically. What will the Government do with those statistics?

12.27 am

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

I consider the Bill to be misconstrued and wrong on a number of grounds. If the national census is important to the Government, and if a number of intrusive questions are to be asked, the Bill should have been introduced by them in their time so that we could have had a debate before 10 o'clock at night. They have used the private Member's Bill route to advocate the measure, given it time after the main business of the day has been dealt with, and introduced it after 10 o'clock. That is offensive to the House.

That apart, the substance of the Bill is offensive. It is wrong for the state to ask questions about religion. No criminal penalty will be attached to failure to respond, but that does not make the Bill less offensive. Let us be in no doubt: answering the question is not voluntary. When advocating his amendment, whereby there would be no penalty, Lord Weatherill made it clear that he had taken such a route because although, ideally, he would have addressed the question of the census being voluntary, he had realised that he could not do that without wrecking the Bill. He had to send the Bill on to this House and said: I have reflected with care on what your Lordships have had to say … I feel that we should take the arguments about a voluntary question seriously. In the interests of progressing the matter smoothly, and so that, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords wished, the Bill may pass to another place in a fit condition, I am proposing an amendment which would have the effect of removing the liability to a penalty under Section 8 of the Census Act—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 364.] He was clear that the offence of failing to answer the question would remain, and that replying was not voluntary. The best ruse that he could invent to attempt to deal with voluntariness was removing the penalty.

I pay tribute to the Government for forcing the matter on to the agenda. It has forced us to examine the Census Act 1920 and question the validity of holding a census. It has forced us to read for the first time the Government's White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", which was published in March 1999. We would not have bothered to read that before coming across the Government's ruthless fanaticism for driving the Bill through the House.

The research that has been conducted on the census suggests to me, as someone who held ministerial responsibility, that the census is an example of research that the Government are good at starting but never know when to end. Like most Government research projects that I came across in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Home Office, one of its main conclusions was that more essential research had to be undertaken, at great cost, over the next few years.

Other colleagues have mentioned John Rickman, the Clerk of the House of Commons. In 1798, he set out the justification for a census. As the House knows, the first census was conducted in 1801. He said that the main reason for a national census was that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy. John Rickman believed that the intimate knowledge of a country was necessary for legislation, but not that the state should have intimate knowledge of individuals' religion. Before the House gets carried away with John Rickman's point, it may be worth considering some other points that that distinguished Clerk made as justifications for the census.

If some hon. Members rely on only one of John Rickman's points for justification, I am entitled to rely on others to show that a census is no longer necessary and that the Bill may therefore be unnecessary. John Rickman's second point was that an industrious population is the basic power and resource of any nation, and that therefore its size needs to be known.

John Rickman's third reason for a census was that the number of men who were required for conscription to the militia in different areas should reflect the area's population. That point is no longer valid, as the Government have decimated our armed forces. Fourthly, John Rickman claimed that there were defence reasons for wanting to know the number of seamen. The fifth reason was the need to plan the production of corn and thus to know the number of people who had to be fed.

John Rickman's eighth point may still appear relevant to the Government. He said that, in a time when many feared the disaffection of the people, a census would indicate the Government's intention to promote the public good. It seems that John Rickman, that distinguished and neutral Clerk of the House, may have been the first Government spin doctor because of his idea of doing something that the people would like. He said that the true size of the population, even after the effects of war, was probably far greater than the usual estimates and that that knowledge would be the most consoling gratification to every lover of his country. Another reason that John Rickman gave was that the life insurance industry would be stimulated by the results of the census. I shall not trouble the House with the full 12 reasons. However, they have probably been quoted in a slightly different form to Treasury Ministers and other Ministers over the past 200 years. Once Governments begin to undertake a huge statistical collection, they can never find the will to stop. All Governments of whatever political persuasion will always find the justification for asking yet more questions and processing yet more information, including information that they have not a hope of using or have no firm intention of using, but may come in handy one day.

Two hundred years later, in their White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", the Government have slightly different reasons from John Rickman. They state: Government, local and health authorities, commercial businesses and the professions need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively. This need is currently best met by conducting a census every ten years covering the whole of the population, and by updating the population estimates each year between censuses using data from … births, marriages and deaths … and … estimates of migration. The Government continue:

However, over time, such data, especially on migration, accumulate inaccuracies, and a regular census is necessary to provide information for revising the annual population estimates. The Government must have a census in order to revise annual population estimates. Why? Why must the Government revise the annual population estimates and conduct a census? One statistical exercise is carried out to inform yet another statistical exercise, to which there may be very little point in the age of the Internet, the market research data available, and the huge amount of other information that each and every one of us must provide to various Government Departments for specific purposes.

Mr. Sayeed

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. There were, I think, two censuses while he was a member of the Government. Did he protest against either of those?

Mr. Maclean

Of course not. I paid no attention to them at all, because in those earlier censuses there was no question of my fundamental human liberties being infringed by the Government asking about my religion. If the Government did not propose to ask about my religion or the religion of my constituents, I would probably have ignored the present census. It would not have been at the forefront of my mind. Because the Government have been obsessed with getting the Bill through and getting the religion question asked, I and no doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been rather suspicious of what the Government are up to.

Why is that vital? I did not think that the Government were proposing any other changes, but my hon. Friend's intervention comes at exactly the right point in my speech. I was about to say that until I began to look into the matter, I thought that the only change that the Government intended to make was to ask the question about religion. However, when I studied the March 1999 White Paper, "The 2001 Census of Population", I found that the religion question is not the only change that the Government propose.

The Government tell us in the White Paper that there will be a slight increase in the number of questions compared with the 1991 Census. They go on to state that the significant changes from 1991 in the questions proposed are: new individual questions on general health, provision of unpaid personal care, time since last paid employment, size of employer's organisation and the question on religion, if the Bill gets through tonight. There will also be revisions to the questions on relationship within the household, ethnic group and one's qualifications.

The White Paper states that the Government will continue to consider whether or not to include a question on income, having regard to the risks to the Census as a whole in so doing … the Government will make final proposals on whether or not the question should be included in the Census itself once research into possible means of securing relevant information from alternative sources has been completed. When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be relevant for her to tell us the Government's intentions with regard to a question on income. Although the Bill proposes to add a question on religion to the 1920 Act, we cannot make a judgment on the single question on religion without knowing the Government's intentions on the other questions that they propose to add.

Mr. Edward Davey

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were debated by a statutory instrument Committee of this House and passed without a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's point of order is timely, as I was beginning to feel that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was going wide of the Bill, which deals with one particular point. I suspect that it is outside the scope of the debate to put the questions that he has been putting to the Minister.

Mr. Maclean

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very helpful. I was approaching the matter cautiously as I did not want to stray from the subject of the debate. If the Minister can confirm the intervention by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), that would be helpful. If all the other matters have been dealt with, we can focus purely on the one question before us tonight: the new question on religion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am the one who, from the Chair, is trying to help the right hon. Gentleman to focus on this particular point.

Mr. Maclean

I am grateful for that help once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The question that we must address tonight is whether we give a Second Reading to a Bill that includes, for the first time, an intrusive and offensive question asking people to state their religion. I shall not return to previously traced ground, but if other matters have already been added to the 2001 census, it helps us to consider whether this is one more straw that may break the camel's back.

It is indicative of the nature of this Government, and relevant to the point that I was making, which was that, like all Governments, they want to ask more questions. They want to collect more statistics, whether they can use them or not.

Mr. Bercow

They do not like answering, though.

Mr. Maclean

That is true.

When one reads the explanatory notes to the Bill, one gets the feeling that the Government are scratching around trying to find some general justifications for the offensive question on religion that they are asking. As has been alluded to by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, the answer is out there, plain for all to see. Various religious groups are quite clear about the purpose of the question, because they have been demanding that the Government ask it, certain in the knowledge that they will encourage all their religious adherents to answer it and that most of the more idle Christian population will not bother to answer it, or will find it offensive.

Many people fill in forms by stating that they are Church of England Christians. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, when, in the Army, one is asked to state one's religion, one picks the easiest answer. Those serving in Scotland pick Church of Scotland, and those serving in England pick Church of England. Many of those who are not strict religious adherents to a particular faith will find the question offensive and may not answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.

Some of my hon. Friends have already suggested that the reason the Muslim community is so keen on this question is because it intends to ensure that all its religious adherents answer it faithfully and thoroughly, so that a maximum score will be marked down for some of those religions. On the other hand, a large number of members of the Christian religion may not answer the question—they may decline to answer it or not bother to answer it. We shall therefore get distorted results.

We can see from the explanatory notes to the Bill that, on the basis of those distorted results, the Government intend to allocate resources according to some of the answers that they get to the religious question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) may have been right in the assertions that he made earlier—that the Bill has some dangerous precedents, that there is a danger that it will cause distortion, and that the Government will seek to move funding away from rural areas to inner-city areas, where they pronounce that they have identified a particular religious minority desperately in need of financial help. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no good Labour Members saying "Oh, oh." We have seen it time and again. The Government did that with police funding, directing funding to inner-city areas. After conducting research that showed that there was a rural sparsity problem, they still refused to allocate proper funding to rural areas.

Mr. Forth

Can my right hon. Friend imagine any circumstances in which taxpayers' money is likely to be diverted by the Government to a Christian community as a result of answers that might be given to the census?

Mr. Maclean

Of course one cannot envisage that in the case of the present Government, but it would be wrong in any event. It would be entirely wrong to direct resources to an area containing a large Christian population, and away from any other area. That should not be a relevant consideration. When my Muslim constituents and my Christian constituents are waiting for cataract operations, and when the waiting list is constantly growing under this Government, their religion is irrelevant; it is the shortage of resources in the health service that matters. I would find it deeply offensive if I discovered that any of my constituents who were members of a minority faith had been given poorer treatment—or better treatment—because of their religion. Religion should be irrelevant to the determining of resources from either local authorities or central Government. There is a smell here. It comes from what some Labour Members have said, from some of what has been written in the press, and from some of the pronouncements made by members of ethnic communities. There is a suggestion that the Bill, and the amendment that it proposes, are seen by them as yet another vehicle for the distortion of Government funding, and as a stick with which to beat the Government. When they get the figures that suit them—showing high populations of certain religious communities in certain parts of the country, in comparison with, perhaps, Christian communities or others—they will use it to extort funds from the Government. The Government know that. If that is their purpose—and we know that it is—they should come clean tonight and simply say so.

Let us not pretend that there is a vital need for the statistical information. Let the Government come clean and tell the House that they want the Bill to be given a Second Reading because they want to buy votes in certain parts of the country.

12.45 am

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have plenty of time. Let me begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see here the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the deputy Chief Whip. It is fascinating to note that he can be so upset by mention of the fact that he is a patron of Manchester grammar school. I think that he said "Cheap" 20 times; let us see how many times he says it now. However, it is nice to see him on the Front Bench, and it is nice to see him listening so carefully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to stick closely to the terms of the Bill. I do not think that gratuitous comments of that kind are helpful to the debate.

Mr. Paterson

Some factual errors were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, as a Catholic, should know that he has the privilege of being a Member of Parliament thanks to a Conservative Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, whose Government passed the Catholic emancipation Act—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that this party, of which I am proud to be a member, had not spoken up, and had never made any progress, on the rights of religious minorities in this country. I think it important to get across that the first real breakthrough after the glorious revolution was the emancipation Act, which gave Catholics the right to be members of the armed forces and Members of this House.

The real history of this country lies in our ability to adopt wave after wave of immigrants from a kaleidoscopic variety of backgrounds and cultures, and to integrate them in our society without conflict. That is a record of which we should be extraordinarily proud. Several Members mentioned Jews. The last pogrom in this country took place in York in 1260; no other country can emulate that record. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) nodding. I believe that he comes from a Jewish culture.

Mr. Bercow

So do I.

Mr. Paterson

As does my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

The history of Jewish immigrants symbolises—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This historical passage is going outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to relate it to this narrow measure. I must request him to talk about the Bill, and leave remoter issues.

Mr. Paterson

I am grateful for that. The point that I make is directly related to the Bill because the Bill seeks to carve the country up into ghettos. It is a recipe for this country's ghettoisation. The trick that we have learned over the centuries is to assimilate different cultures. The Huguenots, for example, came over after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. They kept their religion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that he would do well to take heed of the rulings that I am giving from the Chair. If he does not, I will require him to cease.

Mr. Paterson

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South)

Just sit down.

Mr. Paterson

I will speak. We have plenty of time.

The real lesson is that the measure turns its back on our successful assimilations of previous centuries. What is worse, it is driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, by the power of attracting public funds to ethnic groups.

We already know that, since the war, the Welsh and the Scots have managed to paint themselves as afflicted minorities driven down by the English. As a result, they receive 25 per cent. more public funds than they raise in taxation.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I say to the House as a whole that we will have a properly conducted debate. Determining orderliness will continue to be the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Paterson

Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The information that will be gleaned from the census will probably not be valid. We have the extraordinary subsection (1A), which says that no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion.

Mr. Swayne

Can my hon. Friend assist me? Although no penalty applies for failing to answer the question, clearly, the penalty of a £1,000 fine still applies to those who give false information with respect to the question, but how is that to be policed? Ethnic information is certainly verifiable. I cannot understand how religious information can be verifiable. Surely one's religion is what one says it is.

Mr. Paterson

That is a pertinent point. It calls into question those who do not want to give their religious denomination and reply by stating, incorrectly, "None." That is a valid point.

I have listened carefully to contributions by Members on both sides of the House, but I have not yet heard any practical advantages from putting through the measure. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that the police would learn the number of Sikhs in Slough. It is their business to know how many Sikhs there are in Slough. They should know already. The fact that some faulty information will almost certainly be gleaned from the census will not benefit policing in Slough. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Lady trying to intervene?

Fiona Mactaggart

indicated dissent.

Mr. Paterson

Apparently she is not. There is no practical gain. There is the ability to gain faulty information and to draw conclusions that may have damaging effects on this country long term. For that reason, I shall oppose the measure.

12.54 am

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson)

I see that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who I believe is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, is just leaving the Chamber.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for introducing and explaining the Bill. I share the disappointment of many hon. Members and of the faith communities that the Bill was not able to receive an unopposed Second Reading on the previous occasions when it was presented before the House.

The Government recognise the importance of having a clear picture of the diversity of faith communities in the United Kingdom, to make it possible to deal with the concerns and needs of all sections of the community. [Interruption.] The census is, indeed, a once in a decade opportunity to do that, reliably and consistently, for local areas across the country.

I am grateful to some of my hon. Friends, and to the hon. Members for MidBedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), for shedding the only light cast on the subject in this long debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. May I say to the House that the debate will be assisted if there are no more sedentary comments?

Miss Johnson

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Rotherham (Mr. Mac Shane) spoke about the value of the census and, particularly, of asking the question on religion.

I remind hon. Members that the explanatory notes explain very clearly—that is what they are for—why the information is being collected. Paragraphs 2 to 5 explain the background to the matter. Bearing in mind the hour and the time that we have spent discussing the matter, I shall not read out the paragraphs, especially as some of them have already been quoted.

The basic reason for collecting such information, however, is so that it can be used to inform planning, policy and services. As some hon. Members have recognised positively in their speeches, the United Kingdom is now a very ethnically and religiously diverse community. We need that information to provide the right services while recognising people's individual ethnic and religious perspectives.

Mr. Gray

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson

I shall not give way. I have only just started my speech, and am attempting to reply to a two-hour debate in which many points have been made.

Some hon. Members have repeatedly but very mistakenly used the word "intrusive" to describe the question. Such a description is a travesty of the situation. The Bill emphasises that answering the question is voluntary. The form will also make it clear that it is a voluntary question, and we make it absolutely plain that there will be no penalty whatever for not answering it. Opposition Members have not recognised, as they should have done, that there is no intrusiveness in a question that is purely voluntary.

Many Opposition Members have maintained that the record of those who answer the question will be scrutinised by the Government. However, the Government will not come anywhere near any of that information, whether it is provided by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) or by any other hon. Member or member of the community. The Office for National Statistics collects that information, the confidentiality of which is guaranteed for a full 100 years, and which is used purely for statistical purposes.

I was therefore shocked to hear many hon. Members effectively making an attack not only on the value of the question value but on the overall notion of the census. Many Departments think that the question would be extremely useful in planning services. Moreover, as the hon. Member for MidBedfordshire said, very many religious organisations have actively supported—indeed, campaigned—for the question to be included in the census. They have done so because they think that the information is important.

Recently, I communicated with organisations on the Bill's failure—because of objections by only a couple of Opposition Members—to make progress under the private Members' Bill procedure. I received representations from organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, the Bahai Community of the United Kingdom, the Council of the Churches for Britain and Ireland, the Jain Samaj Europe, Inter-Faith Network for the United Kingdom, the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Churches Commission for Inter-Faith Relations and the archbishops of the Church of England.

Mr. Forth

Will the Minister indicate which religious groups will benefit from the distribution of resources resulting from the census information proposed?

Miss Johnson

The point about the collection of information is that it is to enable us to plan services in the best possible way for the entire community, of whatever religious, ethnic or other background—just as we collect all sorts of other information on the basis of the census. Such information is used in planning many services.

I was shocked for much of the debate because Conservative Members were displaying quite a few prejudices: their true colours were very clearly revealed. Many other people will be shocked by some of the remarks that have been made. "Shocked" is the most appropriate word in this context.

Mr. Gray

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson

I shall not give way at the moment.

The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were both Ministers in previous Tory Governments. They were both heavily dependent—if they were not, it is even more shocking—on census data in the planning of the services for which they were responsible and in respect of which officials in their Departments would have brought forward information closely based on the information collected in the census.

I was intrigued by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the fact that the Bill was receiving some Government support. I have been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) of the considerable co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman when he was an Education Minister with the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend which reached the statute book in 1995 with a considerable degree of Government co-operation and support, including the right hon. Gentleman's strong support in the Committee that dealt with it. So I am not surprised if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in some difficulty with the responses that rightly came from Labour Members to some of his remarks.

The right hon. Gentleman related the religious question to the ethnicity question, which, as a Schools Minister, he repeatedly used as a basis for funding schools and determining standard spending assessments—again a clear indication that such questions can be useful. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman showed no caution when he was a Minister in thinking that there was relevance in using such statistics in order to determine something.

Mr. Gray

rose—

Miss Johnson

I have already given way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Fabricant

It is called courtesy.

Miss Johnson

I shall give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. I was not sure until the very last moment whether the hon. Lady intended to give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but we do not need any further help from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

Mr. Gray

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I could see in her eyes that she was just about to, which is why I persisted.

The Minister has said several times that the information will be useful in the delivery of Government services. She has now briefly mentioned SSAs, and she seems to be indicating that information about the religious breakdown of the nation will be used in the delivery of local government services through the SSA mechanism. Will she confirm whether the current study of SSAs being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take account of the information which will be gained next year with regard to the religious affiliations of the people surveyed?

Miss Johnson

Those are not questions to be determined tonight. We are here to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am well aware that a number of points that hon. Members have raised are matters which can be discussed later or which will be more appropriately dealt with when the Bill—if it receives support this evening, as I trust it will—goes to a Standing Committee for proper, detailed consideration.

When it approves the Bill, Parliament will bring census legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Subject to the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, that will enable information on religion to be available from the 2001 census throughout the United Kingdom, and will have the added advantage of giving us a United Kingdom picture.

Well-informed hon. Members will know that the draft orders for the other aspects of the 2001 census have already been debated elsewhere in the House. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) remarked, those orders were agreed without a Division. From that, it is clear that they were not considered controversial.

To underline the importance that the Government attach to the need for information on religion to be collected, we have agreed to provide time to facilitate the further progress of the Bill. The Government will do everything possible to do that in time for a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census in England and Wales.

Subject to the Bill passing through the House and receiving Royal Assent, the Government propose to lay before Parliament an amendment to the census order providing specifically for particulars in respect of religion to be added to those that have already received the approval of this House for inclusion in the 2001 census.

Conservative Members refer to the explanatory notes when it suits them, but seem reluctant to read them in their entirety. Paragraph 13 states that the Office for National Statistics has taken legal advice, which holds that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights and meets the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Office for National Statistics also consulted widely about the inclusion of a question on religion. The religious affiliation sub-group of the 2001 census content working group comprised members of a wide range of faith organisations. As well as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, the organisations involved included, among others, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society, the National Council of Hindu Temples, and the Zoroastrians, as well as a number of representatives from the Christian Churches in Britain.

We have assessed the public reaction to a question on religion in the census. Some Conservative Members seemed fearful about pride in this matter, but I believe that many people are proud of their religious affiliation, whatever it might be, and will want to answer the question.

The Government have been mindful of the particular sensitivity of such a question. We took careful note of the concerns expressed in the House of Lords when the Bill was debated there. Consequently, the Government supported an amendment to the Bill that would remove the statutory penalty for people who refuse or neglect to state in their census returns the particulars in respect of religion. I should make it clear, however, that the statutory requirement—under the terms of the Census Act 1920—to respond to all other census questions would remain.

Mr. Tyrie

The Minister has asserted that the question will be left voluntary, but Lord McIntosh did not agree. He told the House of Lords that it would not be a good idea, because making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717] Does not the Minister agree that making the question voluntary devalues the census?

Miss Johnson

As the Minister most closely involved with the Office for National Statistics, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the statisticians are strongly motivated to ensure that we have as good a statistical result as possible. The Bill would not be before the House if it did not have the ONS's support as being perfectly sustainable, and the outcomes—

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you with a technical point, but the Minister who is in charge of the Bill has told the House that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights. You will know that clause 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that a Minister of the Crown must make a declaration of compatibility in writing, and before Second Reading. The only declaration of compatibility in this case is in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, which contains a legal opinion taken by the Office for National Statistics. That is not the same as a declaration of compatibility by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The occupant of the Chair has absolutely no responsibility for ensuring that these matters are dealt with in the correct way: it is not a matter for the Chair.

Miss Johnson

This is, of course, a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that the 1851 census included a question that is sometimes thought to be about religion, although that is not strictly the case. The census included a voluntary survey of churches, chapels and other places of worship with respect to the numbers attending services on the census day and the average attending in the month before, together with some other information about places of worship.

Perhaps we can learn from some of the ideas that lay behind that census. In the first census of the new millennium, we need the census information that will be collected to reflect the religious diversity that is now very much a part of the United Kingdom, to ensure that we accurately reflect that in the services that we provide and that we get it right for all communities and all religions.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 10.

Division No. 238]	[1.12 am
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Chaytor, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Clark, Dr Lynda
Atherton, Ms Candy	(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Bayley, Hugh	Clelland, David
Beggs, Roy	Coaker, Vernon
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Cohen, Harry
Bennett, Andrew F	Coleman, Iain
Benton, Joe	Colman, Tony
Berry, Roger	Connarty, Michael
Betts, Clive	Corbyn, Jeremy
Blackman, Liz	Cousins, Jim
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cranston, Ross
Blizzard, Bob	Crausby, David
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Borrow, David	Cummings, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Bradshaw, Ben	Dalyell, Tam
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Burden, Richard	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Burgon, Colin	Davidson, Ian
Cann, Jamie	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Caplin, Ivor	Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Caton, Martin	(B'ham Hodge H)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Dawson, Hilton

Day, Stephen	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Dobbin, Jim	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Donohoe, Brian H	Norri's, Dan
Drew, David	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Efford, Clive	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Flynn, Paul	Olner, Bill
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Ottaway, Richard
Fyfe, Maria	Pickthall, Colin
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Pike, Peter L
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Plaskitt, James
Gibson, Dr Ian	Pope, Greg
Goggins, Paul	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Purchase, Ken
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Quinn, Lawrie
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Randall, John
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Rapson, Syd
Hayes, John	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Heald, Oliver	Roy, Frank
Healey, John	Ruane, Chris
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Hepburn, Stephen	Sarwar, Mohammad
Heppell, John	Savidge, Malcolm
Hesford, Stephen	Sawford, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin	Sayeed, Jonathan
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Shaw, Jonathan
Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Hoyle, Lindsay	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Hurst, Alan	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Iddon, Dr Brian	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Jamieson, David	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Jenkins, Brian	Squire, Ms Rachel
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Steinberg, Gerry
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Stevenson, George
Jones, Ms Jenny	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)	Stringer, Graham
Kemp, Fraser	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Kidney, David	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Kilfoyle, Peter	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	(Dewsbury)
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Temple-Morris, Peter
Laxton, Bob	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Lepper, David	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Levitt, Tom	Timms, Stephen
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Tipping, Paddy
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Trickett, Jon
Lidington, David	Truswell, Paul
Linton, Martin	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Lock, David	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Love, Andrew	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
McAvoy, Thomas	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Macdonald, Calum	Vis, Dr Rudi
McDonnell, John	Wareing, Robert N
McFall, John	Watts, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Webb, Steve
McIsaac, Shona	Whitehead, Dr Alan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
McNulty, Tony	Wilson, Brian
Mactaggart, Fiona	Wood, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Woodward, Shaun
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Worthington, Tony
Merron, Gillian	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Miller, Andrew
Moftatt, Laura	Tellers for the Ayes:
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Mr. Jim Dowd and
Mullin, Chris	Mr. Don Touhig.

Chope, Christopher	Paterson, Owen
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Swayne, Desmond
Fabricant, Michael	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Gray, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Tellers for the Noes:
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Mr. Eric Forth and
Nichdls, Patrick	Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).