| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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. 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. 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 I 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. 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |