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