The next item of business is debate on motion 16038 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move the motion for around 11 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, I am very pleased to open this stage 1 debate on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill, and I move the motion in my name. I am looking forward to what I know will be an interesting debate today. The consideration by the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee through stage 1 has been comprehensive. The evidence provided by stakeholders has been excellent, providing varying views on these very sensitive matters. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed thus far to the Census Bill, and today is another step on this journey. Before I talk about the bill, I will like to take a moment to speak more generally about the census. The next Scotland census will be taken on Sunday 21 March 2021, subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. This will be the 22nd census to take place, and the 17th to be managed independently here in Scotland. For the first time in 2021, it will also be predominantly online. Our country has relied on the census for over 200 years, and it is the only survey of its kind to ask everyone in Scotland the same questions at the same time. No other survey provides the richness and range of information that the census does. The key aspects of the census is that it counts people. It has to be credible. People have to have confidence in it, and it needs to be consistent with other comparators. The census tells us who we are, how we live and work in Scotland, but in telling that story, the census cannot lead society, and it should reflect the society that we live in. We are very proud of the richness of data that we hold and the consistency of our approach that we can demonstrate over the 200 years. Moving on to the census bill itself, the purpose of the bill is to amend the 1920 Census Act 2020 to allow questions on sexual orientation and prescribed aspects of gender identity, those being of transgender status in history, to be asked on a voluntary basis. The power to ask those questions on a compulsory basis already exists in the census act, but refusing to answer a census question or neglecting to do so is an offence under section 8 of the census act 2020, and we want to avoid that for individuals answering those new questions. I recognise that those questions are important, although they are highly personal matters. It is critical that nobody is or feels in any way compelled to answer those important but sensitive questions. Therefore, the bill seeks to mitigate any concerns about intrusion into private life by placing those questions on a voluntary basis, as was done with religion when it was included for the first time in the 2001 census. I am therefore pleased that the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee have supported the general principles of the bill. In terms of the specific census questions, I wish to stress that those are still a work in progress. The bill is not about the detail of the questions. The question set for the 2021 census will be considered as part of the subordinate legislation process on which engagement with the committee will begin shortly and continue throughout next year. Sexual orientation is already asked in most Scottish household surveys, and it is proposed that the sexual orientation question for the 2021 census would mirror the question that was already used in other surveys in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. It is worth noting that a question on sexual orientation for the 2011 census was considered, however it was not proposed to Parliament due to a lack of public acceptance of asking that question at that time. Society has changed significantly and rapidly in the 10 years since the last census, so we must ensure that the census in 2021 reflects that. I am therefore happy that the committee recognises that now is the time to ask a question on sexual orientation in the census and to do so on a voluntary basis. I have also confirmed my support for the committee recommendation to consider the privacy rights when the form is being completed by the head of the household. NRS will take into consideration the committee's direction on consulting with organisations representing young people, including LGBT youth Scotland. The National Records of Scotland is developing a system of completion of an individual form in private where no-one else in the household will be aware that it has been requested. That will allow individuals to respond in a private and confidential way. It is also widely recognised that there is limited evidence on the experiences of transgender people in Scotland with currently no fully tested question with which to collect information. Therefore, the census would be taking a big step forward to ensure that we can develop the evidence that is needed to provide support and protection for Scotland's transgender population. The committee highlighted that the current drafting of the bill, and in particular the way that the term gender identity has been used, might give the impression that sex and gender identity are being conflated. The intention behind the census bill has never been to conflate sex and gender identity. The committee recommends that an amendment is required at stage 2, which I agree is required, to support a proposed amendment by the Quality Network to address the issue. I have confirmed to the committee that we will work with them, the Quality Network and other stakeholders, to deliver a solution that commands broad support while providing the degree of flexibility that the National Records of Scotland needs to develop the census questions. Work has already begun on the precise form of an amendment and what it might take. Our current thinking and that of the Quality Network does not seem to be far apart. I am very pleased that the committee supports the inclusion of the trans status question on a voluntary basis. A question on sex asking whether someone is male or female has been asked in the census since it began in 1801. As part of planning for 2021, the National Records of Scotland has been considering whether that question should have other options. I am aware that there are strong and often very opposed views on whether a question on sex should be binary, non-binary, relate to birth certificates, legal sex or more focused on self-identification. That has been evident from the evidence that is gathered through the stage 1 submissions for the bill. I note that the committee has recommended that the sex question for 2021 should remain on a binary basis. As I said a few moments ago, the wording of the questions will be agreed as part of the subordinate legislation process. However, I note the clear direction from the committee at this time on what they consider appropriate for the sex question. That will now be taken into account as National Records of Scotland worked towards preparation of the subordinate legislation and its consideration by the committee and Parliament in due course. National Records of Scotland are committed to an on-going programme of testing around those questions and are currently engaging with stakeholders to understand their needs and concerns, including those that have been given evidence to the committee. NRS will work closely with the committee over the coming months on this specific question, as well as sharing the proposed full question set for consideration, including any additional evidence and stakeholder views before the formal legislative process. I recognise that the committee considers it regrettable that intersex was referred to as coming within the term trans in the policy memorandum to the bill. It was unfortunate that the policy memorandum incorrectly included intersex people under the umbrella term trans. In response to the committee recommendation that all guidance for 2021 will make it clear that intersex does not fall within the term trans, NRS will develop guidance and consult with stakeholders to ensure that the language and terminology are acceptable. The Scottish Government has noted the written evidence by the organisation DSD families and accepts the recommendation in paragraph 119 of the committee's report. The Scottish Government intends to carry out a consultation later this year, which is separate from the census work. That will cover a range of issues, including how to improve information and services for intersex children and children who have variations in sex characteristics and their families. On consultation, I recognise that the committee has expressed concerns around the lack of engagement with a range of groups and individuals. National records of Scotland carried out a public consultation between 8 October 2015 and 15 January 2016 in order to understand what information users needed from the census in 2021. It is recognised that not all groups were aware of or responded to the public consultation, and the committee made a specific reference to women's groups. I am pleased to note that no women's groups responded to the public consultation, and some might well not have been established at the early consultation stage. However, National Records of Scotland is now actively engaging with the women's groups who responded to the committee's call for evidence. That includes several very helpful and constructive meetings that took place in January. As I said to the committee, it is of critical importance that NRS continues to engage with individuals and groups with an interest in the census, and the committee's work has been very useful to highlight the census to those who have been engaged with so far. Work with stakeholders, including those women's groups, will continue as part of question development. The committee will be fully updated on the consultation. National Records of Scotland has carried out, including progress that is made with the women's groups prior to any consideration of a draft census order. There was also a specific request by the committee for details of consultations held with those who represent intersex people. I recommend for a specific consultation going forward. I have confirmed that NRS did not meet with organisations representing intersex people prior to December 5, 2018, but we are aware of meetings that other teams in the Scottish Government are having. However, National Records of Scotland did have a helpful meeting with the organisation DSD Families in January and are committed to engaging with them, with other organisations and experts going forward so that the views are taken into account. It should be noted that NRS has never intended to have a question or response option identifying intersex people. On languages, there was also a recommendation by the committee to give consideration to the evidence that they received with regard to the language question for the 2021 census. I accepted that recommendation and that will contribute to the on-going process of user consultation and question testing. However, please note that, although some need was identified for multilingualism, the aim of the main language question is to identify people for whom English is not their main language and the level of proficiency in English in order to support service provision. To conclude, I wish to recognise that, in Scotland, we have a strong track record of evidence-based decision making and the census is a key source of high quality impartial evidence to support those decisions. The matters that we are considering today would allow accurate information to be gathered on important topics in an appropriate way, recognising individuals' rights to privacy. I look forward to hearing from parliamentary colleagues here today during the debate. I now call Joan McAlpine to speak on behalf of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee for around nine minutes. I welcome the opportunity to speak as convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee and to set out the main findings of our stage 1 report. I thank all those who have provided oral and written evidence, the breadth of views gathered and the respectful way in which those were discussed credit to the committee. I also thank our clerks. The 1-page bill has turned out to involve a lot of work, but they have more than risen to the challenge. I also thank committee members for the constructive approach that they took to evaluating the evidence. The bill seeks to enable questions on gender identity and sexual orientation to be asked in the census on a voluntary basis for the first time, and the committee unanimously agreed that that should be done. In the course of the committee's scrutiny of the bill, we heard that sexual orientation is a well understood term, but that gender identity has no defined meaning in law. In responding to the evidence received by the committee, the NRS explained that it would reconsider the terminology used on the face of the bill, including whether to replace the term gender identity with trans status. Stonewall and Scottish Trans Alliance, who advise the Scottish Government, informed the committee that they define transgender as including all the identities that are encompassed within the trans umbrella. The trans umbrella is very broad and encompasses people who have chosen to undergo physical changes, as well as people who have undergone no physical changes but have a trans identity. To be clear, trans umbrella includes transgender, as well as gender queer, gender fluid, non-binary, gender variant, cross-dresser, genderless, agender, non-gender, third gender, two-spirit bi-gender, as well as trans men, trans women, trans masculine and trans feminine. It should be noted that the bill does not address how to frame the questions on trans status or history in the 2021 census, and Parliament will consider that along with other questions on the census in the secondary legislation to come. The committee agreed that those questions will benefit LGBT people as they will allow the Government to better meet their needs. The committee also agreed that, given their sensitivity, no one should be compelled to answer questions on trans status or history or sexual orientation, those must be voluntary. We agreed with LGBT Youth Scotland that the privacy of young people must be protected when the form is completed by a head of household. I note what the cabinet secretary has said in that regard. While the committee supports the general principles of the bill, we have concerns about its drafting. The bill proposes to make changes to the schedule of the 1920 census act to insert the words including gender identity after the word sex in paragraph 1, and there is a danger that that appears to conflate two different things. Sex is a protected characteristic under the equality act 2010, whereas the committee heard that gender identity has no defined meaning in law. Gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic in the equality act, but it is very distinct from the characteristic of sex. The sex-based protections in the equality act are particularly relevant for women and girls based on birth sex. For example, the act allows for single sex services and occupations, where that is a proportionate means of protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of females. Some witnesses argued that those protections would be compromised if sex was perceived to be conflated with gender identity. Others disagreed and stated that the equality act also protects those with gender reassignment. Accordingly, the committee welcomes the proposal from the equality network to remove the words including gender identity from the bill, leaving paragraph 1 of the 19-20 schedule unchanged. Trans status history would then be added as a category on the same basis as proposed for sexual orientation. That suggestion reflects the committee's own thinking. We note that the cabinet secretary has agreed that amendments are needed and welcome her commitment to bring forward an amendment at stage 2. I would also welcome clarification from the cabinet secretary upon closing that her amendment will have the effect of removing any linkage to the sex question. The problems with this aspect of the bill seem to be due to a consultation that focused only on a very small number of stakeholders and did not include women's groups or census data users. The NRS's own topic report on the census initially seemed to understand the importance of sex, saying that it is a vital input to population, household and other demographic statistics. I am afraid that I cannot, because I am speaking for the committee. The statistics on sex are used by central and local government to inform resource allocation, target investment and carry out service planning and delivery. It goes on to say that sex is a protected characteristic as set out in the Equality Act 2010 and that the data is widely used to inform equality impact assessments. However, NRS changed the mandatory sex question in 2011 to allow respondents to self-identify as male or female. That change was not mentioned on the census form itself and only appeared in online guidance. NRS proposed to continue the approach in 2021 and are considering whether to make the question non-binary for the first time. That is to offer a third option in addition to male and female. For clarity, that is not to be confused with the new trans status question and it would be a change to the sex question that has been male or female since 1801. Some witnesses suggested that that risks undermining the effectiveness of the data collected and those included Professor Susan McVeigh, OBE, co-director of the Administrative Data Research Centre in Scotland and a member of the board of official statistics. The board advises the Scottish Government, but they were not consulted on the census. Professor McVeigh suggested that NRS quotes got it wrong when he redefined the sex question to include self-identified gender in 2011. She told us, from a research point of view, we know that certain conditions, medical conditions for example, are sex-related regardless of a person's gender identity. That position was supported by some clinicians, independent women's groups, academics and individual women who submitted evidence. Others stated that it would be distressing for transgender people, including those who identify as non-binary, to answer a question according to their biological sex. They included Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall, individual trans people, gender studies academics and some women's organisations that advise the Scottish Government, such as Engender. Significantly, the Office of National Statistics said that the sex question should remain binary for the 2021 census in England and Wales. The ONS's equality impact assessment for the census states that the protected characteristic of sex, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, is whether a person is a man or a woman. That binary concept of sex is in turn fundamental to the equality act's definition of sexual orientation and of gender reassignment and to the law on marriage, civil partnership and many other matters. Our committee agreed by majority that the sex question should remain binary in order to maximise response rates and longitudinal consistency with previous censuses.  The committee also took evidence from DSD families who represent those who are affected by differences in sexual development, which encompass about 40 different medical conditions and is sometimes called intersex. They were unhappy with the term intersex being included as trans identity in the policy memorandum accompanying the bill.  Furthermore, DSD families explained that the vast majority of people with DSD are clearly male or female. They told the committee that while some reports claim that 1.7 per cent of the population is affected by some kind of DSD, only a tiny number—one in five and a half thousand babies—requires specialist input to determine their sex. Therefore, in the view of DSD families, the term intersex can be confusing. While we were aware of intersex campaigners who take a different view, it is concerning that a respected organisation like DSD families, despite being a Scottish charity, were not initially consulted by NRS. We note that the Government now accepts a mistake that was made and we welcome their commitment to engage with a wider range of stakeholders in future, including DSD families. In conclusion, that illustrates the wider problem with the consultation on the bill. While transgender campaigners and some established women's organisations support the bill, a number of female academics, data users, individual campaigners and newly formed independent female rights organisations have concerns around the conflation of sex and gender and the perceived risk to sex-based protection for women and girls. The broadening of public discourse on those issues must inform future consultation in this topic. The Scottish Government should reach out to the widest constituency and carefully consider all the evidence gathered by the committee. In conclusion, the committee supports the general principle of the bill and looks forward to fully scrutinising the forthcoming secondary legislation pertaining to the 2021 census in due course. As society's attitudes have changed, it is only right that the census reflects this. At stage 1, the Scottish Conservatives are happy to support this bill and its general principles with the view to submit amendments at stage 2. As we have heard, a lot of discussion remains to be had on the wording of the questions, and it will be important in later stages to discuss this in a lot more detail. It will also be important to address how the census will define, structure and communicate the voluntary questions on the sexual orientation and gender identity. The purpose of the bill is simple—to allow national records Scotland to alter the current census and vary the questions that it asks. The census, as we know, is important for many reasons. It completes every 10 years and the next one will be in March 2021. It gives us a complete picture of the nation. The census provides information needed by Governments in the UK to develop policy, plan and run public services and allocate appropriate funding. In terms of equality data, it is extremely useful, again providing the basis upon which to plan public services. It is widely accepted that the current gaps in equality data and that this information is needed so that the public authorities can fulfil the public sector equality duty and consider the needs of protected groups under the equality act. As we know, while the census covers most equality groups, it has not previously cleared questions about sexual orientation or gender identity. As social attitudes changed and discrimination lessons, it makes sense for the census questions to reflect society's views. Only 18 per cent of people in Scotland expressed in 2015 the view that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is always wrong. Only 32 per cent of people said that they would be unhappy for a close relative to marry their former relationship with someone who has undergone gender reassignment. However, the purpose of the bill is to reflect this more open society. It aims to amend the census act to make answering questions on prescribed aspects of gender identity, trans status, history and on sexual orientation voluntary. It goes without saying that all needs to be done with care to ensure that data quality information should not be collected if it is not reliable or causes difficulty for people to answer accurately. Given the need for individual privacy, it is right that those questions are answered on a voluntary basis, as was done on questions around religion in the 2011 census. Given the sensitivity of asking those questions, that is, of course, the correct approach. The development and testing of the census questions will continue, which is reassuring, and I am pleased that the inclusion and wording of questions will be subject to the Scottish Parliament's approval. Although the inclusion or wording of any such questions is not within the scope of the bill, being left to regulations in due course, I would, however, like to make the following comments, given the interest from third sector organisations on how such questions might be framed and understood. I note concerns of the committee around the conflation of sex and gender identity, as well as concerns that there was a lack of clarity around an awareness of the online guidance concerning the self-identification approach in 2011. Although I recognise the valid and strongly held views of stakeholders on the mandatory sex question, I am inclined at this point to agree with the committee recommendations that the mandatory sex question should remain binary, having not been present at the committee's evidence sessions. Ahead of 2021, I hope that we will have complete clarity over the approach that is going to be taken. That is particularly important, given the census's primary purpose, is to collect robust data and the Scottish Government's obligation to act in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, in which sex is a protected characteristic. I also note that the recommendation that trans status should be added as a category for census questions on the same basis that is proposed for sexual orientation. As the bill progresses, I hope that further work will be carried out that can bring about a consensus of understanding across the chamber on what will be meant by sex and gender identity in the context of those census questions. Clarity remains key to ensure that appropriate responses will be given. The Law Society of Scotland has highlighted that this is a necessity for everyone involved when it comes to the questions being asked for those answering, interpreting and using the data. Key stakeholders need to be aware of the relevant guidelines that will be put in place and must be consulted beforehand so that it meets all the requirements. What is clear is that the wording of the question is still very much subject to debate. To make some final points, I note that, while the inclusion of the question on sexual orientation has not prompted any obvious concern and, as the cabinet secretary has mentioned, it will be important to consider how that may impact young people in particular when the form is being completed by the head of the household and I am pleased to see that that will be looked at. I also note the clarification from the cabinet secretary that intersex people will not be included in the term trans, recognising that their needs are different, and I welcome the commitment to ensuring that future guidance clarifies that. To finish today, I would like to reiterate the Scottish Conservatives' support for this bill at stage 1. Although the inclusion or wording of any such questions is not within the scope of this bill, it is clear that further work needs to be done. As the development and testing of the census questions continues, I hope to see more clarity in the coming months. There has been a lot of stakeholder interest in this bill, so it is vital that we strike a balanced approach and one that will support the censor's goal of harnessing the most accurate and effective data. I call Claire Baker for a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be opening today's debate on stage 1 of the census amendment Scotland Bill for Scottish Labour. I am also fortunate enough to be a member of the committee who has listened to all the evidence and prepared the report for discussion today. I would also like to thank all the organisations and individuals who have contacted us with briefings and comments in advance of today's debate. The census has taken place every 10 years since the census act of 1920. It is an important exercise in understanding the nature of our population and informs the work of public bodies in making key decisions about resource allocation, policy development and how services are planned. It is a document that has changed over the years to reflect the changes in society and ensure that information gathered on the census remains relevant. Since 1999, it has been the responsibility of this Parliament to scrutinise the census, particularly when new questions are introduced. Any Cabinet Secretary may expect the process to be straightforward, and it has perhaps been surprising how contentious the framing of questions can be. The census amendment bill is slightly different. This legislation is necessary as the questions being proposed are to be answered on a voluntary basis, unlike the compulsory nature of the majority of the questions. There is agreement across the committee and from the evidence received that it is appropriate to introduce questions on sexual orientation and transgender status on a voluntary basis, similar to the questions that are asked on religion. It is important that the overall completion rate of the census remains high and that people feel comfortable answering the questions. The legislation means that non-response to the questions would not lead to a penalty, which is the case with other questions. Introducing voluntary questions on those subjects is the purpose of the bill before us. We shouldn't lose sight of that, and Labour supports the general principle today. The census is designed to reflect society and keep pace with the changing mores and expectations. Currently, there is no reliable data on the size of the transgender population in Scotland, and data on sexual orientation is only gathered from surveys and can then only provide an estimate. More accurate data would enable better planning of appropriate services and greater recognition of the need for services for those groups of people who may be underrepresented and poorly served. The equality network and Scottish Trans Alliance did caution that the questions might not lead to an accurate account of the population as the questions are sensitive and people might not wish to answer them. However, the data will still be valuable and should enable better understanding of the population over the years as the data is collected. However, the stage 1 report raises a number of significant issues that the cabinet secretary must reflect on, and I welcome her statements this afternoon. The discussion and debate during stage 1 was dominated by concerns expressed by witnesses that the legislation conflated sex and gender as a forerunner to a proposal to change the compulsory sex question in the census. Although that was a divisive debate, where it was difficult to achieve consensus, there was a growing agreement that the drafting of the bill is problematic. Following its evidence session, the National Records of Scotland wrote to the committee to state that the intention behind the census bill was not to conflate the matter of sex and gender identity, but the wording of the bill does strongly suggest that. It also expresses a view that the power to ask questions on those issues already exists, and so, in my view, the decision to insert, including gender identity, in section 1 seems redundant and unnecessary and has led to the conclusion that sex and gender identity are being conflated. The cabinet secretary also made the argument that gender identity was being used as a way of future proofing, that it was understood as a term and that it could provide an umbrella term to enable future questions in that area to be introduced. I do not agree with that. The evidence that the committee heard made clear that there is a lack of agreement on the definition of gender identity. As consideration of the gender recognition act is on going, while the rights of transgender people are being debated and consideration is being given to the recognition of non-gender, there is a public debate about those issues, which has been conflated with the discussion around this bill. In those circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate to use a catch-all term for any future questions and that future questions should be specified and scrutinised by Parliament, and thus the short bill must be amended to make that clear. A proposed change to the binary sex question has been the key area of debate, even though it is not part of the bill. It is regrettable that the committee could not receive a consensus in the stage 1 report, even more so when the division is regarding an issue that is not included in the legislation. As someone who abstained on the committee, I asked myself the question, what would the vote achieve at this stage? A stage when the debate and evidence was divisive as well as contradictory and consensus was lacking. The Government needs to decide whether or not to bring forward a census order that would change the sex question, and that is when the Parliament will consider that question, consider the evidence in detail and make the decision. I have concerns that to take a vote at this stage was pre-emptive. The Government's response to the stage 1 report still lacks clarity. However, the vote certainly gave the cabinet secretary a clear indication of the majority view of the committee. The stage 1 report is also critical of the consultation. I do not believe that it was the intention of the national records to exclude anyone or any group from the involvement. I got the impression that they just completely failed to see that there may be a debate and there may be more than one point of view on the issue of the sex question. I welcome that wider consultation has now been undertaken. We support the general principles of the bill, but I agree with the committee that it needs significant amending to clarify the intention of the bill, and the Scottish Government must now seriously reflect on the wider discussion that took place in considering any future changes. I call Ross Greer. It might be short, but this is an important piece of legislation. I am happy to support its principles at stage 1, as are the Greens. The bill's purpose is to ensure that everyone feels able to accurately complete the census. It allows questions about sexuality, trans status or gender identity, as has been covered, to be asked appropriately, namely as voluntary rather than mandatory questions. Although we have made immense progress as a society, we are still not one free of bigotry. We are still a society in which some people feel that they need to hide parts of their own identity, parts of their own lived reality, and that is something that we must respect, which is why I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on young people in particular. It would be incorrect, it would be inappropriate to compel someone to answer a question on something as intensely personal as their sexuality or their trans status. At the same time, the opportunity to collect that data from those who are happy to provide it is an opportunity to meet the needs of those who can too often go unnoticed and unsupported. It is a small change to something that happens once a decade, but it is part of a process to ensure that people's identities are respected, particularly when they engage with public services. There is a contrast between the size of the bill—it is essentially a single-page bill—and the significance of the census and the effect that it has. The committee received submissions in support of the bill and of the principle of trans inclusion for many national and long-standing equality organisations, including the Equality Network, the Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall Scotland, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Cozda Gap and Equate. I thank them all, particularly for their supplementary evidence, as this debate evolved very quickly into areas that we were not necessarily expecting. On that, I know that I am not the only one to have been, at times, frustrated and disappointed by the stage 1 process. As Clare Baker has mentioned, it is the digression of the debate into matters that were outwith the scope of the bill. At times, the very validity and existence of trans and non-binary people were called into question. I know the upset and the anxiety that this has caused many vulnerable people, some of whom have been in touch with me throughout the process. What should have been a small technical change to the Census Act to ensure appropriate wording became instead a much wider equalities debate, one that I do not think we were prepared for. It became a debate about trans inclusion and whether or not those measures impact on the rights of cisgender women. It saddened me, for example, that we took oral evidence from only one trans person, for example. I think that that would have been adequate for what we thought at the start was a relatively technical process on the technical bill, but not the much wider equalities debate that it became. With so much of the debate centred around whether trans inclusion measures undermine the rights of cis women, we did not have any of the long-standing national women's organisations come before the committee, although I appreciate their collective written submissions particularly, as I said, the latter ones as the debate evolved. As I have stated, those women's organisations are supportive of the bill. They also have decades of experience of trans inclusion, and I wish that that had been reflected more in our stage 1 report. Legitimate concerns were raised and should be addressed in the broader debate on the introduction of trans inclusion measures. How trans inclusion measures intersect with services for women, including, particularly, women's only spaces, is one such concern. As Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland has highlighted, their experience of providing support services for women who have experienced violence in a trans-inclusive manner has given them a huge amount of evidence to contribute to the debate. Their letter to the committee stated that, and I quote, it is very clear to us that trans inclusion in our organisations has not given rise to substantive concerns or challenges. Rather, trans women have added to our movements through their support, voluntary work and, as staff members, end quote. Some questions raised were very much within the scope, of course, of the bill, particularly around data reliability and comparability. It was suggested that questions completed on the basis of self-idea, which is existing practice in the 2011 census, and the inclusion of a third option in the sex question, which would be a change, would harm the overall dataset and in turn effect, for example, the planning of sex-based services. I believe that some of those fears here are misplaced, and I would point in particular to the submission from the head of engagement for NHS national service, the body that oversees the patient information database. The NHS uses its own data rather than the census and service planning, and it already collects patient data on the basis of self-identification without issue. The coalition of national women's organisations have extensive experience with this type of data, and it also stated that collecting this information in a trans-inclusive fashion would be beneficial. I dissented from the committee's conclusion in favour of a binary sex question. Like the respected women's inequalities organisations mentioned, I support a third option. Its inclusion allows more people to complete the census. As the NRS found, it increases response rates despite its reports to the contrary. It allows us to gather valuable data on a small and vulnerable group for whom we cannot practically gather such information in any other way, and it does not negatively affect anyone else. Indeed, for all other purposes, this tiny number of people will be randomly redistributed into the male and female categories. My question is why not make a change, which positively benefits a small and vulnerable group at no cost? I hope that as this process moves forward, all members take the opportunity to listen to those whose lives and identities we are discussing. A role of this Parliament should be to lift up the voices of Scotland's most marginalised. The census bill is one opportunity to do just that, which is why I support the principles of this bill. Alex Cole-Hamilton, for around five minutes, please. I am very grateful to the committee for their work in this bill. It is not a committee on which I sit, but I have been keeping abreast of its developments from afar. We live, Presiding Officer, in more enlightened times, and that was brought home to me just two weeks ago when our son, Kit, who is seven years old, came to me and said, Dad, what is trans? I scratched my head and thought that he was an inquisitive boy, but he was mature as well. In the summer, we had a family who came to visit us from Australia, and they had a little boy of your age called Hamish. Did you notice that Hamish always wore girls' clothes? Hamish said, yes, and I recognise that now. Although Hamish was born a little boy, he feels more like a little girl. That is really trans. Kit stopped and said, Oh my God, you mean to tell me that Hamish is from Australia? I like to think that that level of acceptance is the new generation that our children and young people and that acceptance is wholesale and felt right across the board, but with that enlightenment we should reflect that in the public policy, and that is largely from where this debate stems. I recognise that, as Ross Greer articulated in his remarks, that attention exists between cisgender women and the intersectionality of the trans community. I have been dismayed by some of the arguments in that debate. They have been at times characterised by hyperbole, and it is most extreme the suggestion that the advancement of trans rights represents a threat to public safety. That is reminiscent of arguments used against gay men in the 1980s, and they are as inaccurate today as they were then. For my party for this bill that stems from first principles, trans men are men, trans women are women and non-binary is valid. How we reflect that in the conduct of our public policy matters, how we see them and count them is incredibly important in terms of furthering their rights and their inclusion in our society. It is clear where the fault lines in this debate lie. In 2011, the guidance offered for the first time people to fill in the mandatory sex question irrespective of the details of their birth certificate. For the trans community that represented a breakthrough, a significant breakthrough, and I have sympathy with someone who was concerned then to remove that latitude to change that guidance would be very much a retrograde step, because many found that 2011 census liberating no longer anchored to their birth identity. All the trauma and the process of shedding the connection to that that they have been through, they could finally have society understand and include them for who they are. If there is a need for empirical evidence collection at birth, we need to be clear, and the Government needs to be clear about how it will square that circle. I ask the Government to work further with Stonewall and the Equalities Network to find a way to answer that empirical need without rowing back against the tide of the advancement of trans rights and inclusion. I also recognise the arguments and the importance of not having a binary question at that specific mandatory sex question. It is important for those who do not define either as male or female and who perhaps were born into sex, who would greatly struggle to answer a binary mandatory question, and perhaps we will consider that point going forward. Our trans community, as I said at the top of my remarks, Presiding Officer, deserves to be seen and to be counted. Being seen and being counted is the first step to having your rights realised whoever you are in our society. When women got the vote, it happened when homosexuality was made legal. Those marginalised communities were recognised as full citizens for who they are. The bill and the census and the way in which we count our population is a fundamental cornerstone in the advancement of equality in this nation. Before I move to the open debate, there is time in hand, so I can give all open speakers, if they wish, five minutes. I do not think that Mr Stevenson will have any problem with that. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Some invitations are more welcome than others, but this is one of them. I have not been part of the consideration of the bill up till now. I am a data user of censuses, but I am also a user of censuses. In other words, my interest in genealogy means that I will lift and read a census every single week, but they are all 100 years old. That is limited, but some interest to today's debate. SPICE tells us that the information on equality groups in the census can be used to monitor discrimination and plan public services, and that is, of course, correct. However, we have to bear in mind in all this debate that it is a statistical survey, and it is not about identifying responses and needs of individuals, but of communities, often quite small communities, to make sure that public services are provided appropriately. The SPICE also says that the information collected must be authoritative, accurate and comparable for all parts of Scotland. There is a difficulty in that description of what we are trying to do. Authoritative, certainly, accurate perhaps and comparable almost certainly. The comparable retaining the male female for birth identity helps the comparability, but we have to remember that at birth it is the parent who registers the birth and registers what the gender of the infant is. I have an example that is actually from exactly 150 years ago, where a child called Keith—I will not use the second name, there will be living descendants—was registered, as you would expect, as a male, but three years later in the census and every subsequent census was shown as female, and in 1905 Keith married a man and gave birth to children. Therefore, an error, probably an error, was made at the point in 1869 when Keith was born. Because there is no medical requirement to provide information about gender to someone who is registering, you die, you need medical information on your birth certificate. Therefore, there are some difficulties about authoritative. It is possible, as the example that I have just given shows, to have something on your birth certificate and put something else on your census, that has always been there. Of course, who fills out the census? In broad terms, it is the head of the household. I welcome the indication that there will be a way for individuals to fill out information that they may not wish to share at that point with the head of the household. Equally, it is a voluntary question, so we will not get the answers from everybody for whom there might be a particular answer. We will not necessarily get the answer for people who do not choose to use the separate system that allows them individually to respond. That opens up the much broader question, for which I have no answer, of how we therefore can rely statistically on a self-selected group using a self-selected description. I think that it is possible to deal with that, but I hope that the national records of Scotland might, by sampling perhaps, find out how the answers that we have got represent the underlying reality, because the statistics that come from our census are important in planning services. Voluntary questions are not new, they were introduced in the 1891 census, when the first time there was a question was whether you spoke garlic. You did not have to answer the question, so there is nothing new about a voluntary question. We can do that in this instance, as we did then. I am going to trust my colleagues as we take this bill forward, I will not be playing any part on it, but I think that the clear distinction between physical sex and how people wish to be treated, recognised and treated, is an important one. I think that it really is a human right in our society that people are able to choose how they are to be treated. That goes to the heart of this particular debate. I very much welcome this tiny little legal provision, because it is really only a couple of lines in a very small bill that actually leverages very big consequences for quite a lot of people in our society. I think that it is right and proper that we take that forward in the way that we are planning to and continue to engage to make sure that the kind of questions that we ask give us answers, which statistically help us to respond to a wide range of diverse needs that, in the past, we really did not recognise and certainly did not talk about. Thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. I call Jimi Halka-Johnson to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I apologise for having to leave the chamber very briefly during opening speeches. At a length of one side of A4 paper, this is certainly one of the shortest bills that I have been invited to speak on in this chamber. However, within those short clauses, there are a number of sensitive issues that merit discussion here today. The bill touches on matters of individual identity and how they relate not only to the public being engaged with the census, but also to the eventual users of the data that they bring together. There are questions of approach here. The evidence presented to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee shows that this remains controversial, and I would incidentally like to express my thanks to the committee and its clerking team and all those who gave evidence in bringing together such a comprehensive report. One key objective of the bill is to place additional questions on a voluntary level. That is something for which there seems to be wide agreement. As with sexual orientation, it is clear that a number of people will not feel comfortable disclosing details of this nature. In relation to the proposals being set out for additional areas of questioning, the national records of Scotland have indicated their view in a letter to the committee that the power to ask questions on gender identity already exists and is covered by the Census Act 1920. The precise wording will be considered later. Voluntary nature, therefore, is a key part where wide agreement can be found. At stage 1 debate, a stage 1 debate is not really the place to be thrashing out the substance of these questions in any great detail. Indeed, there has been the suggestion that this bill is perhaps not the appropriate place either. We can, however, look at the basis for proposing them and for, in essence, expanding the scope of the census further into areas of gender identity and orientation. The census has a long history in the United Kingdom, having been conducted every 10 years since 1801, barring 1941, of course, when we were in the midst of the Second World War. We can, of course, look back even further into the past to see much earlier historical precedence. John Rickman, the statistician most responsible for the first modern census, pointed out that the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation. Every administration in our history has valued accurate data on its population. Today, questions on sex, gender and identity significantly provide an understanding of groupings within society and can protect against discrimination. The nature of how those questions are asked has undoubtedly been the key area of interest for those responding to the committee through written submissions. Many of those are detailed and well-considered, but they present very different viewpoints. A message that comes through us as the bill progresses, we are going to have to consider and tackle some of those core issues. A thread that connects those differing viewpoints are questions about clarity and accuracy of data that must be answered. The committee has recognised the shortcomings in the last census. Supporting guidance indicated how transgender people could answer questions about sex, however, that was only published online and was not part of the census form itself. There seems to have been a very real capacity for confusion, and it is right that the committee calls for absolute clarity in the approach ahead of 2021. Where voluntary questions are ill-conceived, there is also the potential for lower response levels. As we approach the bill, we should recognise that there are strong, honestly held, competing views around parts of it. Those will likely garner the largest share of public attention and commentary. One area that we can join together on is to insist that there are plans in place to ensure that questions are statistically useful, that they are clear to respondents and that we take a consistent and rational approach to implementing voluntary questions. I have little doubt that there will be further discussion in relation to the questions that the bill enables. I hope that an approach can be found that respects the views of all those who are involved. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I am pleased to speak in today's debate. One might wonder at the amount of evidence that is taken in respect of a one-page bill. However, that is because of consultation throughout the important questions around sex and gender, as we have already heard this afternoon. The bill's purpose is actually very straightforward to me answering census questions about prescribed aspects of gender identity and sexual orientation voluntary. Given the sensitivity of such questions and concerns that some respondents might understandably have about intrusion into their private lives, the voluntary nature of the questions is of the utmost importance. Since the 2011 census extensive research, including the national records of Scotland's census 2021 topic consultation, has built a strong case to justify the inclusion of questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. That is relevant to the public sector quality duty that is placed on authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. Robust data on sexual orientation and gender identity will also help to inform future policy and ensure best practice across Scotland. For example, accurate information on the size and geographic spread of the transgender population will more effectively help to plan gender dysphoria services, thereby ensuring that resources are placed where their impact can be optimised. To gather that data, the bill adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the schedule of matters about which particularism may require to be given. That also provides a power to prescribe aspects of gender identity, such as transgender or trans history, for the purpose of making questions about those aspects at voluntary. Of course, a precise form of the questions will be considered as part of the census order and census regulations procedure set, usually scrutinised by Parliament the year before the census, and it is not within the scope of the bill. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has confirmed that she will work with the committee after stage 3 of the bill and throughout 2019, so that we may properly scrutinise the census questions before they are formally considered by Parliament. That will allow a more evidence-led approach to ensure that the questions are as robust as possible. Undeniably, those are sensitive issues, and during evidence sessions I was impressed by the measured and considered tone used by witnesses, sometimes with diametrically opposite opinions. Based on the evidence with contributions ranging from academia to quality organisations to women's groups, our report makes key recommendations, some pertain to the precise question forms rather than the census bill itself. First, we recommend that the mandatory sex question of 2021 census should remain binary. That is based on the evidence of organisations such as Women's Place UK, which maintain that an individual's biological sex is an immutable characteristic and because sex is a protected characteristic under the Quality Act 2010, we should not be conflated with gender identity. I trust that the Government will heed the committee's clear view on the phrasing of the mandatory sex question and take that forward as subordinate legislation is developed. I am pleased that the Government is committed to amending the census bill at stage 2 to ensure that gender identity and sex are not conflated. As the Quality Network suggested, including gender identity, it could be removed from the bill leaving paragraph 1 of the schedule to the 1920 act regarding the mandatory sex question unchanged. Trans status could then be added as a category for census questions on the same basis proposed for sexual orientation. Another key recommendation is for all guidance relating to the 2021 census to clarify that intersex does not fall within the term trans. Again, I am pleased that the Government has confirmed that NRS will work with stakeholders to develop guidance using the appropriate language and terminology. The evidence emphasised that intersex should not be viewed within the prism of gender identity as a medical condition. I particularly thank DSD families and information support charity promoting the rights and wellbeing of children with physical sex development mental differences for their illuminating evidence. I support the principles of the bill and believe that changes to the census are appropriate given the societal shift that Scotland has experienced since 2011. Thanks to the thoughtful contributions of all parties, we are now with the opportunity to remedy some of the deficiencies highlighted by the committee's report. I look forward to working with colleagues to develop the census order going forward and also with the cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Stuart McMillan, Ms McNeill, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The census is vitally important and it gives us a complete picture of the nation, or at least it should. Given that it is only conducted every 10 years, it is important that we get it right. It is an analysis of the character of society and it is a vital piece of information in which to make decisions about budgets and society going forward. I commend Joan McAlpine on an excellent speech on behalf of the committee, which showed how diverse and complex the issue can get, but I well understood everything that she said. If we want central and local governments to offer the best and the most responsive public services, then policies must be based on high-quality evidence. More over data on sex and gender, as well as ethnic group data, can help to identify the extent and the nature of disadvantage in the UK, an issue that we are all signed up for. Ingender has noted that public authorities are increasingly sharing their confusion with them around how to gather services or data around sex and gender. They pointed out that the census has an important role in setting a precedence. Ingender says that, because of its scale, the census plays an important normative role in shaping how information is gathered in other, more frequent or localised data gathering. I am grateful to Ingender for an excellent briefing on that. It is important, as others have said, that people can feel comfortable answering questions on sexual orientation and transgender status. It is right that the questions that have been proposed are to be answered on a voluntary basis that is reflected in the committee's agreement to that. I am also pleased that the committee took on board the concerns raised by witnesses that the bill at times appears to conflate sex and gender identity, and even if that was not the intention, I am pleased that those concerns will be addressed at stage 2, because we need to be clear that there is a big difference. In a survey of LGBT youth Scotland in 2017, 85 per cent of LGBT people, young people said that transphobia was a problem in Scotland. 41 per cent of transgender young people said that they had experienced a hate crime or hate incidents in the previous year. Given the high level of concerns raised, it is important that we try to gather the best data that we can at a minimum to try to find out how comprehensively it is possible how many people identify as transgender. I have long believed that this Parliament, in its work on equality, has a job to do in focusing on the rights and the needs of the transgender community. I, for one, would be very welcome to hear how the extent of the transgender community do the senses. I also welcome the clarification from the cabinet secretary that intersex people will not be included in the term trans, and to be perfectly honest, I am quite astonished that I am ever random could have mixed up the two. Those two groups should not be and cannot be thought of as one. Other members have described what an intersex person is, and it is quite a distinct thing. I just wanted to say something about the recommendations from LGBT youth in my closing remarks. I think that the question of the privacy of young people and, in fact, any person in a household, and it is worth asking the cabinet secretary in summing up what the definition of a household or these days of equality is going to be. I think that it is one of the most important issues to try and resolve. The suggestion from LGBT Youth Scotland is that there is another process that could run alongside that, that would be voluntary. I am absolutely in favour of that. I just know that we have to give quite a bit of thought to how we can make sure that that data is matched properly, and that there is no loss of data as a result of it. I am 100 per cent behind that idea, but I just want to make sure that we can make sure that the data matches. I welcome the committee's recommendations to the Scottish Government. I should further consult with a range of organisations that represent intersex people in order to improve the information and special services that are available to support children and families of people who have differences of sex and development. I conclude by thanking the committee for that excellent work in this regard. I thank you very much. I call Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Annabelle Ewing. Mr Ewing will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr McMillan, please. At the outset, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the convener regarding everyone who provided evidence and also participated. I genuinely found the bill to be fascinating and enlightening in equal measure. The strength of the evidence that we heard certainly provided me with a lot of thinking to do, but I also tried to fully comprehend the issues that were raised. I did not expect that the breadth of evidence to be as such when the bill was both so short, but also mainly facilitating the process to ask a voluntary question. I am content with the report that our committee has produced and equally so with the response from the cabinet secretary and a letter that was dated 22 February. The cabinet secretary has clearly appreciated the genuine concerns raised by those who are giving evidence and our subsequent report. I am pleased that, at this early stage, she has confirmed that amendments will be forthcoming at stage 2. I want to highlight a few aspects of the report, starting with the final section, which is the consultation sections 122 to 129. I found that the lack of consultation by NRS concerning and, in particular, with women's groups—paragraphs 121 to 121—of the report. However, I thought that there had to be strong reasons for that to actually be the case. The cabinet secretary's reply was indeed helpful in this regard, by stating that no women's group responded to the public consultation and that some were not established at this early consultation stage. With the NRS consultation taking place between 8 October 2015 and 15 January 2016, it could be possible that, with the upcoming parliamentary elections, the various groups in existence may well have been focusing on other issues, including their manifesto developments. However, with no response from any of them, I would have hoped that NRS would have went back to them after the 2016 election. However, that work is clearly under way now, and I am thankful and I am pleased that that is the case. I want to base the remainder of my comments with the following two points as the backdrop. In section 11 of our report, the committee agrees that there has been a considerable social change with regard to issues concerning sexual orientation since 2011. In section 75, the court from the cabinet secretary said that the census does not lead public opinion. The census has to reflect society as it is just now and ask questions that maximise the response rate so that the data can be used. Clearly, the 2011 census will have been more appropriate for that time, but it is right that the census goes through rigorous analysis and process before it takes place. Our committee divided in one issue, whether the mandatory sex question should be binary. Clearly, it is a defining issue for many people, and I appreciate the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate. My decision came down to the following three points. First, the ease of gathering data, secondly, how the information gathered will be analysed and used, and thirdly, the consistency of data gathering. I appreciate that the recommendation will have disappointed and potentially angered some people and organisations. However, I believe that the recommendation was made for the best of intentions by those who voted for it. I also believe that colleagues who took a different position did so for the exact same reasons. The evidence that we heard from Professor Susan McVie of Ender University was very powerful. That was section 60 of our report, in which she stated that it is a fundamental property of research that, in designing a questionnaire, you need to be extremely clear about what you are measuring. Possibly controversially, I think that the general register of Scotland got it wrong when it redesigned the census in 2011 and conflated sex and gender identity. It did come as a surprise to me, therefore, to read in the cabinet secretary's letter that the NRS testing seemed to indicate that a non-binary question will lead to a higher response rate. However, I generally would be grateful if the NRS could provide further information regarding the testing results and the suggestion of maintaining a binary sex question. The conflation of sex and gender identity became apparent during the early stages of our scrutiny, therefore, I am sure that it came as no surprise to many people and that we have highlighted that very much in our report in section 9. The final point is just regarding the DSD families that have been touched upon by some other colleagues. I had never heard of DSD families beforehand and I am grateful for the briefing that we received from them. I was generally humbled by what I heard from them and the challenges faced by individuals and families every single day. As the cabinet secretary indicated in her evidence and the letter, the policy memorandum will, thankfully, be amended to reflect more accurate descriptions of intersex and trans people. I am also pleased that our recommendation in section 119 will be progressed. I welcome the progress of the bill and the amendments that will take place at stage 2. I am pleased to vote for the general principles that are here today at stage 1. I am pleased to have been called to speak in the stage 1 debate today on the Census Amendment Scotland bill. As we have heard, the bill is a very short bill. It has three sections maximum and one page. However, notwithstanding that, as we have heard, it has generated quite a lot of discussion, given wider issues that have been raised that are not, in fact, intended to be within the scope of the bill. However, before turning briefly to some of those wider issues, I think that it is important to focus at the outset on what the purpose of the bill is. That is to ensure that certain questions can be asked on a voluntary basis in the next census that has been scheduled for Sunday, 21 March 2021. Indeed, it is the desire to make the questions voluntary that, in fact, triggers the need paradox play for primary legislation. The questions concerned relate to the bill that is currently drafted, as we have heard, to gender identity and to sexual orientation. It was felt that, in the interests of privacy and potential sensitivities involved, it would be best to pose those questions on a voluntary basis. As we have heard, there has been widespread support for this approach, from a range of public bodies, from the Law Society of Scotland and from various equalities organisations and from others. As we have heard, it is also worth noting that, when a question on religion was introduced for the first time in the 2001 census, it was also included on a voluntary basis. There is precedent for this approach. Where the bill has generated rather more discussion, results in effect from what can only be regarded as confusing, if not, in fact, technically defective drafting. Specifically, there is a reference to amending the relevant schedule to the 1920 census act by inserting the wording, including gender identity, after the word sets, in terms of what broad subject headings questions can be asked upon. That has been flagged up as conflating gender identity with sex. Further to the concerns raised, the committee has been seeking clarification that the bill will indeed be amended at stage 2 to delete that confusing reference. I am pleased to know that the cabinet secretary in her evidence has agreed to reflect specifically on that point. I would submit the initially flawed approach together with some rather precipitant comments in the policy memo about decisions that it will be, in fact, for this Parliament to make a new course in terms of the subsequent census draft order. Those elements have led to a wider discussion at this stage about the binary nature of sex and the mandatory sex question in the census, the mandatory question not being within the scope of the bill. Evidence was received in this regard by a number of people and organisations and different points were raised. Evidence was received, however, to the effect that the on the scientifically grounded theory of human sexual dimorphism ever since was also received, reminding the committee that sex is, under the 2010 Equality Act, a protected characteristic and evidence was received that highlighting rather the conflation of sex with gender identity is a social construct becoming more widespread. For example, Dr Kath Murray, who gave evidence commented on the impact of the trend, stating, and I quote, "...this blurring which has the effect of changing what it means to be female has implications for the protection of women's rights." Aside from the wider issues raised by the evidence on the subject, it is, which in four minutes, I'm afraid, I don't know, four and a half, I can't go into in five, great, going up, yeah, five, I can't nonetheless have, I don't have time to go into that in the detail that I would like, but it is worth pointing out, as regards this debate in the context of the census bill, that the national records of Scotland and evidence taken from Amy Wilson, their head of census statistics said, and I summarise it, even if there were to be a non-binary sex question, the national records of Scotland would just randomly assign people back into male and female, and that they would still produce outputs on a male and female basis. I would submit that that rather begs the question as to what would then be the point of including a non-binary question in a census that is supposed to adhere to the highest statistical standards and provide longitudinal consistency. The UNS in England and Wales have proposed that the Manchester sex question remain binary as far as the 2021 census is concerned, and, as we have heard, the committee recommended by six votes to one with two abstentions that the mandatory sex question remain binary. I entirely support that recommendation. Just one sentence in conclusion would be to say that I am very much welcome indeed the cabinet secretary's commitment to further consideration of how people's privacy can be respected when completing the census in their own households, a point that I raised at committee. I call the clear baker close for Labour. Ms Baker, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting debate and provides the chamber with an insight into the broader issues that the committee has been considering through this fairly humble piece of legislation. It may be surprising, given the degree of debate that the expectation of the bill will pass at stage 1, as the committee recommends. While the issue of the sex question has been a key focus of the debate, members have identified other issues. Polly McNeill talked about the LGBT youth briefing that was received, which was very helpful and highlights the growing need for the census to support confidentiality as questions are becoming more intimate. I urge the cabinet secretary to consider the proposals from LGBT youth, and I welcome her comments on privacy rights this afternoon, which I will reflect on. Annie Wells raised the issue of the self-identification model in 2011, so guidance was provided in the 2011 census that allowed self-identification on the sex question for transgender men and women, which was available only if you sought it out online and raised the question of how widely understood that position was. The committee did hear evidence that this approach in the 2011 census compromised the data, as well as counter evidence about the extent of any impact of that. That is an issue that the cabinet secretary needs to reflect on. I have a look at the gender representation on public boards Scotland act 2018, which was recently passed, which had a pretty prescriptive transgender definition, because it states that the term woman includes someone who has had gender reassignment or is living as a woman and in tending to undergo gender reassignment. The guidance for the 2011 census was different and enabled self-identifying as a different gender. I wonder where all this fits in with the review of the gender recognition act that is on-going, and I think that this lack of consistency is problematic. While the debate about whether to change the existing binary question was a key concern of the committee and the witnesses, the committee was taking evidence in the dark that it is unclear what the Government's intention is, and today's debate has not made that any clearer. The Scottish Government and the NRS has created a situation with this bill that it did not appear to anticipate or prepare for. The published by memorandum to the bill says in the section concerning the sex question, looking forward to 2021, consultation has identified the need for a more inclusive approach to measuring sex. The sex question being proposed for the 2021 census will continue to be one of self identification and will provide non-binary response options. However, following the appearance at the committee, which was the end of our evidence taking sessions, the national record wrote to say that we are currently considering whether or not to have a non-binary response option for the sex question, but it is too early to say if this will be the final proposal as testing and consultation continues. The cabinet secretary at committee said that the policy memorandum says that the 2021 sex question will have a non-binary response option. It should have said that this approach is being considered and tested. This lack of clarity was very unhelpful and this area of debate has dominated the evidence, even though it is not part of the bill. As the convener outlined, the ONS has confirmed that there will be no change to the question and the forthcoming census. Ross Greer outlined the argument supporting a change to the sex question. I understand that it would enable some people to answer the question based on how they live their life. I appreciate the feelings of a non-binary person that the choice that they are presented with does not reflect their lived experience. However, the NRS and Evidence said that they would then just assign a sex to the respondent. In the committee, they said, if we ask a non-binary question, that is the big if, and it is obviously something for the committee to take a view on. We do not propose to produce outputs on a non-binary basis. In our conversations with stakeholders, we have always been consistent into allowing people to respond in a way that reflects how they identify, but that we will still produce outputs on a male and female basis. We have discussed with stakeholder groups the fact that we would randomly assign people back into male and female categories, because, as the numbers are expected to be very small, they will not affect the statistical distributions. That begs the question over how that information contributes to the data collected by the census, which I understand is the purpose of the census. I would welcome clarity on what purpose a change to the binary question would serve, and perhaps the cabinet secretary can respond to that issue. There is also an assumption made by NRS that the numbers are expected to be very small. I am not sure that the committee was completely convinced that you could be so confident of that. So there is a lack of consensus on this approach, which makes it problematic. As others have said this afternoon, it was only in the 2021 census that it is being proposed to include a voluntary question on sexual orientation. In the policy memorandum, the reason for that is described as, a question on sexual orientation was considered for inclusion in the 2011 census. However, the level of public acceptance of the question was not considered sufficient to merit its inclusion in that census. Given the evidence that the committee heard, there are clearly questions to be answered over the level of public acceptance over a change to this binary sex question. Consideration must be given to whether there are other ways for the census to meet the needs of non-binary people, and a two-stage question has been suggested. Stuart McMillan talked about the inadequacies in the consultation. That debate has really grown since the proposal changes to the GRA, and that is really the nub of the debate. It is unfortunate that the census comes before a resolution to that issue. Mr McMillan also said that the census does not lead to public opinion. That was different from Ross Greer, who talked about—and I may miss a quote here— but he seems to talk about the census moving the debate forward and taking a lead on equality's agenda, and the cabinet secretary could perhaps provide clarity on her views of the purpose of the census. The debate at committee has been a microcosm of the wider debate that is taking place around possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act. However, within that debate, we should not lose sight of other issues that impact on LGBT people. The brief from LGBT health and wellbeing highlights some of those issues. The LGBT population is subject to multiple disadvantage. For example, 74 per cent of LGBT health and wellbeing service users report disability compared to 20 per cent of the general population, and 27 per cent report unemployment compared to 3.7 per cent of the general population. We know that prejudice exists towards that community and that physical and verbal assault is all too common. Access to appropriate health services is not always easy and that people can face isolation from their families and their community. Although I fully recognise the concerns that are being expressed around enabling self-identification for trans people and what that means in terms of women's spaces and women's rights, we must also recognise that the LGBT community is often vulnerable and open to exploitation and assault themselves. We need to charter a path through this debate in a sensitive and understanding manner that recognises and addresses the concerns of everyone about the impact of those changes and works hard to achieve understanding and consensus. Thank you very much, and I call Lannis Andrew Sture to close to the Conservatives. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate this afternoon on the first stage of the census amendment Bill of Scotland and closing on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It is clear that, as our society changes over time, we must adapt the way that we record information and reflect those changes. The Equalities Act of 2010 requires public authorities to fulfil certain public sector equality duties. Public bodies need the aim to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity between different groups and foster good relations between different groups. That is the theme of where we are today. It is also vitally important that we have a rich set of data, and it is the data and the information in order to allow public bodies to fulfil their public sector equality duties. The bill and its introduction to those two voluntary questions will undoubtedly help to plug in some of the information gaps that we have recognised exist when it comes to equalities, particularly in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals have shown how supportive they are of some of those inclusion questions. As a member of the committee and myself, I pay tribute to many of the individuals who gave oral and written evidence to the committee, and it is only right that those questions are voluntary ones. Sexual orientation and gender identity can be challenging for many individuals at different stages of their lives. As we know and as we have already heard, LGBT people can often face discrimination and abuse, and that became very much part of the process as well, because they find themselves alienated, discriminated against and challenged, and we need to do all that we can to support that mechanism. To make such questions compulsory would threaten individuals with a fine or a non-compulsory. That in itself is not what we should be doing to try and secure that people have the opportunity and that they can and do feel that they are being taken on board and their views and opinions are being recognised. It is also worth noting that the UK Government's white paper published last year reaches similar conclusions on the issue of questions of sexual orientation and gender identity. As the Scottish Government's proposed approach, it is not compulsory for people to give their sexual orientation or gender identity, and they should feel that they do not wish to do so. Ministers have also indicated that it is right not to answer those two questions and should be clear in the legislation before the census is taken. As has been mentioned by other contributors this afternoon, the debate is important to note that the bill does not change how people legally change their agenda. That is not what we are discussing. The issue of gender identity will separately be debated in the Scottish Parliament when it comes and gender identity will come before this chamber later on. It has also been interesting debate, and we have had many contributions from individuals to feel quite strongly and passionately about where we are. My colleague Annie Wells noted the concerns of the committee around the confliction of sexual and gender identity, as well as the concerns of the lack of clarity around the awareness of online guidance that was put forward in the report in 2011. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has taken on board some of the consultation needs to be robust and that further consultation requires to be done to ensure that people have the confidence in that consultation, because there were some individuals and organisations who did feel that that consultation was lacking in some way. That has now been acknowledged, and we will take that as we go forward. Annie Wells also commented about the clarification from the cabinet secretary or intersex people who will not be included in the terms trans recognising their needs as a different. I welcome the commitment to ensuring that there will be future and further guidelines on that. Our own convener, Joe McAlpine, talked about the privacy of young people who must be protected in this whole process. That, I believe, is vitally important. We need to ensure that the data collected and the information that we have is robust, but at the same time we must protect individuals who feel that they are being threatened or that they have a conflict with themselves and that the information that they will give and put on their behalf is clarified and clear. Claire Baker talked about highlighting how there was agreement across the committee on many aspects of it, but it was all about ensuring that we have accurate data. The complexity of the whole issue has to be looked at. We have to consider looking at changes, and changes will be required to come forward in stage 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about living in enlightened times, and I think that that is vitally important. We need to recognise the rights of people. That policy matters. That bill may only be small, but it matters. We must support communities and individuals who feel marginalised and threatened within their community. Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about the sensitivity of the nature of the bill and the approach of the committee towards that. Senses have been going to need to know one, and we appreciate that, but the accurate data is so important because there have been shortcomings in the past, and those should not be what we are looking at as we move forward into the future. Annabelle Ewing talked about the evidence that was received. We received a lot of evidence from different organisations and from different individuals who felt very passionate about the process and wanted to ensure that they got their views and opinions across. As members of the committee, we certainly heard that. That is vitally important because sex is a protected characteristic in this whole process, and that has come through. However, as I say, it is vitally important that we get the information and that privacy is protected during this entire process. The Scottish Conservatives are in agreement with the broad principles of the bill. We would like to see a number of important changes, such as further clarification on the distinction between mandatory and voluntary questions and how the census will define structure and the community and the compulsory elements of that when it comes to gender identity. We will therefore be supportive at stage 1, but we will seek to look at amendments in stage 2, because the stakeholders have made it quite clear to us that we need to take on their views and their opinions and have a balanced approach so that we get the whole idea of the census to ensure that we have the correct data and that the data is there for everyone to be used. It is vitally important that we take that approach and that we do all that we can because, as I said before, we owe it to the individuals who have come forward already and told us what they believe and we should support them. I am very grateful to my parliamentary colleagues for what has been a sensible debate on a very sensitive issue in matters. I and the committee recognise that there are strong views on those issues and that some of them have been demonstrated here today, but it is vital that the whole debate is conducted in a respectful manner as it has been conducted during the debate itself in Parliament. That has been the first opportunity for Parliament to get involved in the 2020-21 census in Scotland, but it really is just the start of our journey. I think that it was Jamie Halcro Johnston who mentioned that perhaps stage 1 was not necessarily the time that we should be discussing the actual content of the questions, which is true, and the bill is not necessarily the place to discuss the wider issues of gender recognition and some of the wider issues that have been touched on by a number of members, but we are where we are and we have to reflect the evidence that came forward during the witness sessions. I will address that because, when we get to the questions themselves during the regulations, those are issues that we will have to work through. Most people agree—I think that it is really important that we underline this—that it is the right time to ask the two specific questions on sexual orientation and transgender and that they should be asked on a voluntary basis. That is the purpose of the census bill that is before us, but clearly there has been a stimulation and interest in wider census matters. I am very proud to have portfolio responsibility for the census in Scotland. I am very keen to use the next two years to prepare for a successful and meaningful census. It is only 752 days until the census of 21 March 2021, so the clock is ticking down. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the people of Scotland must have confidence in the census as they are sharing their personal information. The issues that are discussed here demonstrate just how sensitive that information is. We must meet the legitimate expectations by ensuring that their data is kept safely and securely. We must also keep the trust of the people of Scotland by asking the most appropriate questions that reflect our society at that time and that we do this sensitively. Will there be a response option or question to be included in the census to identify armed forces veterans? I am delighted that we have already announced that. I am surprised that Mr Corry is not aware of that. That was announced by Graham Day as part of the veterans debate some time ago that is our intention to have that. Again, that would be subject to the agreement of Parliament itself. It is important that we deliver on the trust that we have with the people of Scotland. We have done that over 200 years of data collection and we should be very proud of our achievements. Some questions have come and gone, but we have also been consistent in our professional approach to the census with the tracking of the core data. Although the significant focus for 2021 is about it being the first digital census being primarily online, asking the right questions in the appropriate way is still at the heart of the census. That is why National Records of Scotland has carried out significant stakeholder engagement over recent years and continues to take that forward to ensure that we have the best possible census. The discussions on the bill have contributed to that process. For example, National Records of Scotland now act to be engaging with women's groups who responded to the committee's call for evidence. Some of those groups have not existed at the time of the initial public consultation. I wish to be very clear that no stakeholder has intentionally been excluded from engagement and consultation by NRS. Everyone with an interest in census questions is encouraged to engage with the process. Even though extensive testing of options for those questions was carried out prior to the bill, which included thousands of people in Scotland from across society, some views have emerged recently as a response to the call for evidence, so the door is still wide open and we welcome the views of others. I want to address a number of points. Joe McAlpine had asked about the issue around the wording. The wording in the bill currently says that sex, including gender identity—I think that having the association of including gender identity with sex—quite clearly can conflate that issue, and we are open to making sure that we can address that issue. In particular, we are looking to identify where the transgender question could come into being. I also want to reflect that, with a very important point, the ONS and what is happening in England and Wales, it looks to be that it will revert to and continue with a binary question on sex, but it will be self-identified as it was in 2011. I think that there is a genuine issue that the committee and all of us will have to consider, because if we do not necessarily have a binary question that is self-identified, then how do transgender people particularly answer that question? If it is a mandatory question, how do we make sure that we have the opportunities for them to address that? If we have an issue of a non-binary question on the sex question, that would avoid self-identification of male and female, as would otherwise be the case in a binary question. Those are all the points that have to be considered. Remember that the sex question is a mandatory question, so if you do not have the options, how do people then complete it? We need people to complete the survey. The important thing for transgender people particularly is having that voluntary question, and that is the vital one that we can agree to today, and I think that it is very important. There were also some questions about what would get the best response. It might surprise the committee, because it just assumed that a binary question would have the better response rate. On the testing of more than 5,500 people, the non-binary sex question had the lowest level of non-response, very marginal, and that is the information that will be shared with the committee. The two-stage question, which I think might have been referred to by Clare Baker, had a much lower response rate. The credibility and the ability to count is absolutely important, so that is the information that the next stage of the consideration of the census will be considered as part of the regulation. Joan McAlpine recognises the reason why the committee, my majority, opposed a non-binary sex question because of the longitudinal quality of the data over time, because male-female question has been asked since 1801. I recognise the longitudinal aspect, because it would have a higher response rate, which is not necessarily the case, but we can still look again at how we consider those questions. On the basis that the 2011 one was on a self-identified basis, that is again something that the committee will have to consider when it looks at the next stage, which is the question. Annie Wells said that we are looking for clarity, and we need to strike a balanced approach. Clare Baker made a very important point about whether we should future-proof census or not. The experience that we have had today is that, perhaps every 10 years, we will have to have legislation in order to debate issues that might be controversial. Those who can remember 2011 will remember that language was an issue that had some controversy around it at that time, so perhaps we might have to reflect on that. Ross Greer made very important points about the quality area, but I think that that comes back to the point about whether the census should lead debates or reflect the society that we live in, and it is important that it reflects the society that we live in. Stuart Stevenson has always made very interesting points. I think that the census is about statistical service, and it is not about individuals' service. It is important that it is authoritative and that people have confidence in it. In relation to Stuart Maxwell, he asked about the better response rate. I think that I have addressed that. Pauline McNeill asked about the definition of householder. There is a definition that, from the point of time, we will send to you, because it is detailed to make sure that we have clarity on that. Everyone who has contributed today has touched on different aspects of the committee's assessment and report. It has highlighted the current drafting of the bill, and, in particular, the way in which the term gender identity has been used, has created some confusion and a perception of section gender identity that is being conflated, which we do not want. Therefore, amendments will come forward at the next stage. I wish to be very clear that it was never our attention to conflate sex and gender identity. The committee supports the proposal by the Equality Network to amend the draft bill to address this. Our thinking is very similar to that of the Equality Network. As members will be aware, section 1 of the Census Act 1920 provides the enabling power underpinning the undertaking of the census. It allows the making of the census order, which will be the next stage in the regulation and the detailed questions that we will move to next. National Records of Scotland will be working closely with the committee in the run-up to the laying of the census order and the census regulation. I am very keen to ensure that there is sufficient time to ensure comprehensive understanding of all matters of Scotland's census in 2021. Perhaps it is a one-page bill, but it addresses some of the fundamental issues that are confronting society just now. However, in all the comments that we have had today, equality and the importance of championing equality by this Parliament underlined everybody's contribution today. I am very pleased about that. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill. The next item is consideration of motion 16009, in the name of Andy Wightman, on the appointment of a member of the Standards Commission for Scotland. I call on Andy Wightman to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I speak to the motion in my name as a member of the Corporate Body appointment panel to invite members of the Parliament to agree to the appointment of Ashley Dunne as a member of the Standards Commission for Scotland. The Corporate Body supports six independent office holders, and one of our statutory duties relates to appointing with the agreement of Parliament some of the office holders. This particular appointment relates to the Standards Commission for Scotland. By way of background, the Standards Commission's role is to encourage high ethical standards in public life by promoting and enforcing the codes of conduct for councillors and members of devolved public bodies. It issues guidance to councils and public bodies and adjudicates on alleged contraventions of the code referred to it by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. The commission has a convener and four members, all of whom are part-time. Our nominee Ashley Dunne has a wealth of experience in public services specialising in organisational and leadership development and has over 20 years of experience in NHS management across the United Kingdom. We believe that Ashley Dunne will bring to the post professionalism, fairness and a strong commitment to ensuring high standards of conduct in public life are maintained, and I am sure that the Parliament will want to wish her every success in her new role. I move the motion. The question on the motion will be put at decision time to which we now turn. The first question this evening is that motion 16038, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the census amendment Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 1609, in the name of Andy Wightman, on the appointment of a member of the Standards Commission for Scotland be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. In that case, can I be the first to congratulate Ashley Dunne on her appointment? That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.