 The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion 17645, in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the Census amendment Scotland bill. Before the debate begins, the Presiding Officer has to make a determination on whether or not any provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system or the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, it does no such thing. Therefore, it does not require a supermajority at stage 3. I invite all members who wish to speak in this bill to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on the cabinet secretary, Fiona Hyslop, to speak to and move the motion. I am very pleased to open this stage 3 debate on the Census amendment Scotland bill. The deliberations of the culture tourism European external affairs committee through stages 1 and 2 have been considered, although the bill may not have been extensive in terms of its size. It is certainly very important for Scotland's 2021 census, which has been demonstrated by the evidence provided by stakeholders. I would like to reiterate my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the census bill process. I would also like to take this opportunity again to highlight why it is important to support Scotland's census, which includes the bill. Scotland's next census will be held on Sunday 21 March 2021, subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. The 22nd census will take place since 1801 and the 17th to be managed independently here in Scotland. It is the first census since the Scottish Government pledged to make public services digital first. We are building a platform to enable people to complete online and we expect the majority of responses to be online, but with support available for those who need it. Scotland has relied on the information that the census gives us for over 200 years and it remains the best way to gather the information that the Government, councils, the national health service and others need. The information that we will gather from the census helps us to understand who lives in Scotland and what sort of homes we have. It is the official count of every person and household in the country and the only questionnaire of its kind to ask everyone the same questions at the same time. No other survey provides the richness and range of information that the census does. The Scottish Government and other public bodies use census information to help to make decisions, including how money will be spent on the schools where our children are educated, the roads that we drive on every day and the hospitals that we rely on. The key quality aspects of census data are that it has to be able to count the whole population, it has to be credible, people have to have confidence in it and it needs to be consistent with other comparators. We are very proud of the richness of data that we hold and the consistency of approach that we can demonstrate over the 200 years. National Records of Scotland has responsibility for Scotland's census on behalf of the Registrar General for Scotland. Work is well under way to ensure that the 2021 census is secure and privacy is protected with census records held securely and confidentially for 100 years. The census tells us who we are, how we live and work in Scotland, and in telling that story it must reflect society, it is not a vehicle to lead change in society. National Records of Scotland has consulted extensively with groups all over Scotland to develop proposed questions and test those questions to ensure that they are acceptable to the public. By asking questions that reflect Scotland as it is today, we will ensure that the census will continue to be a vital source of information for decades to come. The final decision about what questions are asked in 2021 will be for the Scottish Parliament. Collecting census information is a substantial undertaking as it is producing outputs from that information. It takes a considerable amount of time in order to ensure that they are complete and of the quality that is required by national statistics. National Records of Scotland will be carrying out a thorough process of capturing, coding and cleaning the data and then ensuring that it is complete. It will then apply rigorous controls to the data in order to ensure that we protect the confidentiality of the data and deliver it on the legal commitments that have been made. That takes time, but it is essential to ensure that the robust data that is used from across services in Scotland is used. National Records of Scotland has already announced its intention to publish the first set of estimates from the 2021 census within a year of census day, which will be considerably earlier than in 2011. I am sure that the public consultation process will inform the new questions and stress testing. There are two elements. I say in terms of the consultation, particularly for users, because it is about the use and the need for the population. That commences years and years ago. That is not something that happens now. It is something that has developed over a considerable amount of time, as is the stress testing. There are different types of that, such as the actual questions that are in different sections in relation to different communities, but also in terms of Gaelic. That has been taking place over recent years and, indeed, in the latter stages, even in recent weeks and months. As part of the membership of the culture committee, I have encouraged my officials from the National Records of Scotland to keep the committee abreast of all the process and progress of the census. I am about to move on to the particular content of the bill, but the whole census project is far wider and deeper in terms of stress testing. The member will be aware that the fact that it is digital will also have an implication in terms of stress testing. That is a new dynamic to the census in previous years. All remaining outputs should be published over the course of the following two years, including those on sexual orientation and transgender status and history in terms of the output of the census in that first year or census day. In the following two years, we will also include the references to sexual orientation and transgender status, which is the subject of the bill. It is essential that we have quality data, and I must use the required time to achieve that. The census bill is an important part of that. I am sure that everyone knows that the purpose of the bill is to amend the 1920 census act to allow questions on sexual orientation and transgender status and history to be asked on a voluntary basis. It is 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 will be taking a big step forward to ensure that we can develop the evidence needed to provide support and protection for Scotland's transgender population. Sexual orientation is already asked in most household surveys in Scotland, and it is proposed that the sexual orientation question for the 2021 census would mirror the question already used in those other surveys and elsewhere in the UK. 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. The need for collecting this information has been arrived at through a process of consultation and research, as I have just reported in my response to Jamie Greene. National Records of Scotland has worked and continues to work with stakeholders to understand the needs and concerns of the communities involved. The power to ask those questions on a compulsory basis already exists in the census act 2020, but refusing to answer a census question or neglecting to do so is an offence under section 8 of the census act 2020. We want to ensure that non-completion of voluntary questions will not result in the penalties that exist for non-compliance in respect of mandatory questions. 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 the case with the religion when it was included for the first time in the 2001 census. I was pleased that the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee supported the general principles of the bill in its stage 1 report, and likewise by parliamentary colleagues at the stage 1 debate on 28 February. In my stage 1 response to the committee empowerment, I committed to bringing forward amendments at stage 2 to address the issue of the perceived conflation of sex and gender identity in the bill as introduced. I delivered on that commitment, and I am glad to say that the committee accepted those amendments. National Records of Scotland worked with Equality Network and others on the specific text of those amendments before they were lodged. That included consulting with other interested stakeholders, including the women's groups that responded to the committee's call for evidence at stage 1 to highlight the suggested amendments and to seek any views that they had on them. I am pleased to say that only support was received. The amendments placed transgender status and history into schedule 1 of the Census Act 1920 as an entry on its own, alongside religion and sexual orientation, and removed the provision in the bill that would have been added, including gender identity, to the paragraph in that schedule that contains the word sex. The amendments ensured that the census order will be available to make the question on transgender status and history voluntary, which is one of the key purposes of the bill. The census bill will allow questions on sexual orientation and transgender status and history to be voluntary, but there is still a subordinate legislative process to ensure that those questions are included in our 2021 census. That process will very soon be under way. I am grateful for the support of Parliament up to this point and look forward to the further and extensive engagement that lies ahead. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Census Amendment Scotland bill will be passed. I thank the members of the committee and the staff who work with our committee on getting the bill to where it is. The reality is that, never before—at least since I joined this Parliament—a one-page bill, 23 lines of it, caused so much debate, discourse, attracted correspondence and, indeed, controversy. Before I get on to those complex issues around sexuality, sex, transgender identity, let's start with the basics. What is a census and what is it for? A definition of a census is the procedure of systematically acquiring and recording information about the members of a given population. We can thank the Romans for this. What have they ever done for us? As we know, the census is important for many reasons in the modern age. It is completed every 10 years and the next one will be in March 2021. It gives us a complete picture of the nation and gives the information that Governments need to develop policy, the plan, services and how it is going to allocate funding to those services. The last census was altered. It is not unusual to alter census. In 2011, there were additional questions added around race. They, too, were voluntary changes. The census changes. Society changes. Governments change and attitudes, hopefully, change as well. The purpose of this bill is simple. It will allow the national rights of Scotland to alter the census and vary the questions that it asks. It proposes to add two additional voluntary questions. One around transgender status in history and two sexual orientation. We do not know what those questions will be nor the guidance that goes around them, but we will address that when we have to. They will be voluntary, not mandatory questions. They will not force people to answer them. There is no penalty for not answering them. By answering those questions, they will not redefine one's sex, nor will they change it legally. They will not infer additional rights or freedoms on anyone, nor will they remove anyone's existing rights or freedoms. The stage 1 report came to a recommendation that the current mandatory sex question in the census remains a binary option. I, alongside another member, abstained from that recommendation. I did not take a view on it during the stage 1 report, but in my view that was not what the bill was about nor what the bill was proposing. That was not the question that the committee was asked to respond to. The committee had a point to make with that recommendation and it made its point, but the debate around the conflation of the term sex, gender and gender identity is a complex one. It might strike an observer slightly odd as why there has been so much fuss around a simple bill and so much debate has come out of it. I have a thought on that. It comes down to one thing and that is the timing of it. As many of you are aware, there is a wider conversation taking place around gender recognition legislation, the content of which we are yet to see. The whole subject does inevitably stir up emotions. I see this bill as being somewhat of a precursor of that debate, of what I think will be a wide-ranging debate, but let me bring back to the real question of why we need this data, who needs it and what we are going to do with it. One MSP commented to me in the early days of this that he said that it was none of government's business to ask these questions. To an extent, to be fair, I have some sympathy with the notion of minimal government interference in people's private lives, but I think that those are useful additions to the census. I will be happy to answer one of those voluntary questions, albeit digitally. It is interesting that, when the ONS looked at the legislation in England and Wales, it said that the inclusion of a prefer-not-to-say option might improve the response rates, so we shall see what questions are put before us. There is a shortage of meaningful data when it comes to information about the LGBT community in Scotland. Our public services need this data to identify how it will make funding decisions, how it will deliver service plans across health, education and social care—all areas that we frequently hear are under delivering this community. As co-convener of this Parliament's LGBTI cross-party group, much of the research that I am presented with comes from the third sector, from organisations such as Stonewall and Youth Scotland. I think that robust national data would allow public bodies to make better decisions. This is important because we know from research that LGBT young people in Scotland experience higher levels of mental health problems. We know that nearly half of LGBT young people write their school experience as bad. We know that equally a quarter of LGBT people are facing issues in their place of employment, so this data will help Government to make decisions around that. After the bill passes, we as the Parliament have two tasks ahead of us. First, the NRS will present us with new voluntary questions for our approval. It is absolutely right that the questions are the right ones, that they make sense and that they are accompanied by appropriate guidance on how to answer them, because somebody who identified themselves in the old census using the sex question may now use these new voluntary questions as a means of doing so, but we have to ensure that there are high levels of data returned and that the quality of that data is reliable, so the devil will very much be in the detail. The second, most importantly in closing, task ahead of us is the more difficult debate around gender recognition. All I am going to say on this matter for now, because it is not a debate for today, is please, please let everyone's voice be heard in this debate, and let us collectively as the Parliament condemn threatening or abusive behaviour wherever it appears, from whomever it comes from. If we are going to get this right, and we must get it right, then we must lead by example. I will do my bit, I hope we all will. Thank you very much, and I now call on Clare Baker to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased that today we are debating stage 3 of the census amendment Scotland act, as part of the preparations for the 2021 census. As well as opening this debate for Labour, as a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I would like to thank everyone who provided evidence to the bill stages and those who have provided briefings for today's debate. At the stage 1 debate, I highlighted a number of drafting issues with the bill, and I am pleased that those were addressed by amendments at stage 2. I believe that we now have an important bill in the evolution of the census, which recognises the need for relevance by introducing questions on sexual orientation and transgender status and history in an appropriate manner. However, it has not been a smooth journey. The progress of the bill takes place against the backdrop of anticipated changes to the Drenger Recognition Act. At times, this debate is too divisive, aggressive and intolerant of alternative views. There will be time for parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and it is our duty to approach that in an inclusive and responsible manner. Returning to today's bill in the census, the bill suggested a conflation of sex and gender, which appeared to pre-empt the decision about any proposed changes to the sex question. The guidance provided with the bill added to those concerns. The policy memorandum to the bill said, 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. The national records provided additional written evidence to the committee later, which said, we are currently considering whether or not to have a non-binary response option for the sex question, but it is too early to see if that will be the final proposal as testing and consultation continues. The position was then confirmed by the cabinet secretary during his evidence. The lack of clarity was unfortunate in our scrutiny of the bill. It resulted in the committee taking considerable evidence on this issue, even though it is not the subject of the piece of legislation. There are, however, important matters raised that should inform the national records for Scotland and how to take forward the next stages of the census. First, there are questions to be addressed about the changes that were made to the guidance that was provided for the census in 2011, which made it clear that trans people should answer with their self-identified sex. It is important to recognise that this is a mandatory question, and answering the sex question was difficult for transgender people, and answering the question with their lived identity is consistent with how they present in other areas of their lives. However, there are arguments that this has introduced a degree of uncertainty into the data gathered, and that this has now means that sex and gender identity are conflated into one question. There is a proposal that we heard through the committee process that there should be two questions, one on sex and one on gender identity. I do understand the concerns raised by the equality network that to reverse the position of 2011 would be highly problematic. Transgender people have existing legal rights to privacy, dignity and respect, and they argue that it is not appropriate to insist that people disclose their biological sex at birth. Murray, Blackburn and McKenzie argue that this approach damages data integrity and quality, and that it sets a precedence for other data-gathering exercises and surveys, resulting in the loss of robust data on the protected characteristic of sex. How do we resolve a situation that has already been created? We can reflect that there should have been some discussion and scrutiny prior to 2011 and learn from that experience, but I would hesitate towards reversing that decision. This bill, by including questions on transdatas in history, should enable policy makers and anyone else interested in the data to cross-reference responses and extrapolate figures based on sex and on gender identity. At the next stages of the census process, I would look for reassurances on that. Secondly, the committee, by a majority, voted to retain a binary sex question. Although I did abstain on that vote, given that the issue was not the focus of our work at hand, a majority of committee members were persuaded by evidence that we heard from experts who used the information gathered from the census. I raised an issue around this at stage 2, which the cabinet secretary may wish to respond to. I understand that, for a non-binary person, the choice that they are presented with does not reflect their lived experience. However, the NRS said that they would then just assign a sex to the respondent. In committee, they said, if we ask a non-binary question, that is a big if and 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 conversation with stakeholders, we have always been consistent. It is about allowing people to respond in a way that reflects how they identify and that we will still produce outputs on a male and female basis. I would welcome clarity on what purpose a change to the binary question would serve. The response from the national records also makes assumptions about the number of people who would choose a non-binary term. I appreciate the national records that will undertake testing of the questions, but how many people and how they will respond to the question is unknown. Could the cabinet secretary perhaps respond to those issues in her closing remarks? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I look forward to this afternoon's debate. I call Ross Greer to open for the Green Party. Given the volume of amendments to some other recent pieces of legislation, it has been a while since we have reached the stage 3 stage of a debate in here and been in the position of essentially seeing the same discussions that we were having at stage 1. Despite the much wider debate, which specific census questions play into, the bill itself is not a contentious one. It is short, it is really quite simple and it is something that the Greens support, both from the point of view of effective data collection and the improvements that it makes in ensuring that this is a country where everyone is treated with dignity and respect by the state. The bill's purpose is to ensure that everyone feels able to accurately complete the census, a principle that does find consensus here in Parliament. It will allow questions in future editions of the census regarding sexuality and what we are now referring to as trans status or history to be asked appropriately, namely as voluntary rather than mandatory questions. Compelling someone to answer something as intensely personal as their sexuality or trans status would be wrong. It would be wrong even if we lived in a society that was free from bigotry, but clearly we don't, as was brutally illustrated by the monstrous attack on two queer women on a London night bus just last week and in the stories told by members of the trans community outside this Parliament just a few hours ago. At the same time, the opportunity to collect this data from those happy to provide it is an opportunity to meet the needs of those who too often go unnoticed and unsupported. It's a small change to something that happens once a decade, but it's part of a process to ensure that people's identities are respected, particularly when they engage with public services. The committee in our stage 1 deliberations received submissions and supported the bill and of trans inclusion more broadly from many national and long-standing equality organisations, including the Scottish Trans Alliance, Stonewall Scotland and Gender, Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Coase the Gap and Equate Scotland. I'd like to thank the equality network in particular for their evidence, for their helpful suggestion of an amendment, which the committee agreed with and the Government delivered on, and for their work today, organising the powerful rally outside of Parliament, where the voices of trans people and their supporters across this Parliament were heard. As I mentioned in the stage 1 debate, I'm not the only one to have been frustrated and saddened by the process surrounding this bill and our committee's considerations of it. I acknowledge that the national record has asked the committee to consider the potential questions that will come through the census order after this bill has passed, but we should acknowledge the upset and anxiety that has been caused to many vulnerable people by the digression of this debate into matters outwith the scope of the bill. At times, the very validity and existence of trans and non-binary people was called into question. I do feel some shame that my Parliament has caused some of my friends this stress and a fear that their rights, rather than being enhanced, could be rolled back. What should have been a small technical amendment to the census act to ensure that appropriate wording has become an avenue through which a major debate has played out? Frankly, I don't think that it's played out in a way that any of us can be happy with. We can do better than the false framing of trans rights versus women's rights, as all of Scotland's leading women's organisations have so ably shown us. When the Gender Recognition Act comes before us, I hope and expect that we will do better than hear evidence from just a single trans person. I certainly hope that those women's organisations such as Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland will, in future, be invited to present their wealth of evidence and experience, showing that their trans inclusion measures have not undermined the rights of cisgender women. Legitimate concerns were raised through the bill, though, and should be addressed in the broader debate and the introduction of trans inclusion measures. How trans inclusion measures intersect with services for women, including women's only spaces, is one example. As Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland highlighted in their written evidence, once it became clear that this is where the debate turned, its experience in providing support services for women who have experienced violence in a trans-inclusive manner has given them rich evidence. Its letter to the committee stated that it is very clear to us that trans inclusion in our organisations has not given rise to substantive concerns or challenges, rather that trans women have added to our movements through their support, voluntary work and staff members. Some questions were raised very much within scope of course, particularly around data reliability and comparability. It was suggested that questions completed on the basis of self-idea, which is existing practice and the inclusion of a third option in the sex question, would harm the overall dataset and, in turn, affect, for example, planning of sex-based services. I believe that fears here are misplaced and I would point in particular to the submission from the head of engagement for NHS national services, the body overseeing the patient information database. The NHS uses its own data rather than the census in service planning and they already collect patient data on the basis of self-idea without issue. The coalition of national women's organisations have extensive experience with this type of data and also stated that collecting that information in a trans-inclusive fashion would be beneficial. I dissented from the committee's stage 1 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 national records of Scotland found, increases response rates despite the conclusion in the committee's stage 1 report claiming the contrary. It could allow us to gather valuable data on a small and vulnerable group for whom we cannot practically gather that information any other way. It does not negatively affect anyone else. I do not necessarily notice that, in the evidence that we received, the national record said that if there was a third option, it would just assign a sex male or female, it seems like they would not actually gather any data on a group that presented its non-binary. I thank the member for that intervention. That is why I said that it could allow us to collect that valuable data. That is a choice to be made. It is a policy choice for the national records of Scotland or for the Scottish Government. It is a choice that this Parliament can have a decision on whether to reallocate the people whose data is collected in that group between the male and female categories. However, the point is that the collection of the data does not negatively affect anyone else. Indeed, for all other purposes, as the member mentioned, random redistribution into male and female categories will happen. My question remains why not make a change that positively benefits a small and vulnerable group at no cost. However, I would also like to ask the cabinet secretary, perhaps, if she could reflect on that in her closing remarks. As Clare Baker has already asked about the sex question as it stands, if it were to have a binary option or not, will it continue to be on the basis of lived sex as it has been previously? I hope that, as the process moves forward, all members take the opportunity to listen to those whose lives and identities we are discussing. A role of this Parliament is to lift up the voices of Scotland's most marginalised. The census bill is only one small opportunity to do just that, which is why I support this bill. Thank you very much. I now call on Tavish Scott to open for the Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is, as others have observantly noted, a somewhat short bill, three sections only, and I am more confident than usual, or indeed anyone could be more confident than usual, that everyone in this debate will genuinely have read the whole thing, not something that we could probably argue about the planning bill next week, possibly. It's brevity that it doesn't translate into a lack of importance as the cabinet secretary correctly observed. Getting the census right is a once-in-a-decade task that is laid before the Parliament at that time. Just as with the census before, the results of that will be then reflected on for many decades to come. Before I deal with a couple of points in the bill itself, I want to associate myself with the motion recently tabled and widely supported across this Parliament. As Jamie Greene and Ross Greer have reflected, one issue has hit the headlines or at least been a feature of some social media traffic, and that is the importance of the census producing accurate information about sex and gender identity as a precursor to the wider legislative proposals that this Parliament will consider on these matters in due course. This place, this national Parliament, above all, should not tolerate threats, intimidation and physical violence against women who articulate a view on the definitions of sex and gender. We must surely make a joint concerted and strong stand against what happened at Edinburgh University recently, as Jenny Marra's motion rightly does. As someone involved in the university debate put it to me, the whole situation is distressing and most distressing of all is the sense that those of us arguing for a rational debate that allows arguments against simply replacing sex with gender identity across law and public policy to be properly heard are being left vulnerable to defamation and threats of violence. Any sympathy that I have for an argument evaporates when some of those who purport to make that behave in the way in which I now understand happen. We cannot and should not tolerate that. It is not the Scotland that I want and it is not the Scotland that this Parliament surely wants either. A rational debate about rights needs to be just that, rational. It is important to be clear on what we are talking about here today. In passing this bill, the census will be equipped to gather more data about people's gender identification and their sexual orientation. Of course, the actual questions that will be asked in the 2021 census will be considered via secondary legislation in the form of a census order. No doubt there will be further important debates around exactly how those questions are worded, and those will be for later. During the course of this debate, I have certainly listened to those who have argued about how we shape this bill in order to get the census right. Important arguments have been made about the importance of robust data, and it is important to reflect on the policy memorandum, which explains that Government, local authorities, health services, the education and academic communities, the third sector, commercial businesses and others need reliable information on the number and characteristics of people and households if they are to conduct many of their activities effectively. That seems to me to be the overwhelming weight of the evidence that I and many committee colleagues heard in recent weeks. Ensuring that those services are equipped with robust data to carry out their services is therefore the overwhelming purpose of this census. There have been important reflections during the course of this debate already about how we ensure that data is rather robust, and Ross Greer has added to his perspective on that matter. I also recognise the arguments that have been made about the importance of representation. The census will collect information that will be relied on. It is therefore important that the snapshot that will be taken at this time is able to accurately reflect Scottish society as it is at this time. Society not just includes the trans community in the census, and the trans community does not need to be included in that census. That community deserves to be seen not just in the census but to be counted accurately in that census as it is taken forward. Those are the first steps to people having their rights realised, whoever they are, right across Scotland and in whatever way. Our records do not know enough about the trans community, and with the passing of this bill and other bills that will come, that will surely change and change for the better. I believe that the bill is capable of doing what it is set out to do. It is surely to design a census that collects important social demographic information that is used in the design and delivery of public services. On that principle, we on those benches will very much support that measure. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open part of the debate. I call Joan McAlpine to be full by Annie Wells. Thank you very much. Before I start, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Clare Baker, Jamie Greene and Tavish Scott in urging a civilised debate on those matters and condemning all violence or threats of violence against women, as outlined in Jenny Marra's motion to the Parliament. I would also like to thank the committee clerks and all the witnesses who gave evidence to our scrutiny of the bill. I support the bill. Both sexual orientation and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and it is appropriate to ask about them in the census on a voluntary basis. Sexual orientation should be simple to quantify and produce data useful to our understanding of society. Trans status is more complex, as well as transsexuals who have surgery after psychological therapy. Stonewall's trans umbrella includes people with no medical treatment who refute the contention that they have a psychological condition, and it includes transvestites and non-binary identities. It will be interesting to see how the census question captures meaningful information about this very different group of individuals. I want to explain briefly why some feminists find the concept of gender identity problematic. In her book The Second Sex, the philosopher Simone de Beauvoir argued that gender was a social construct, not something innate. Some so-called feminine characteristics such as specificity, concern for appearance and types of dress are roles that we adopt, not who we are. Feminists believe that a boy can like pink and play with dolls and he's still a boy, and a girl can like toy trucks and crop her hair and she's still a girl. To suggest that those who do not conform to those gender stereotypes must be a different sex is troubling for some feminists. I reject the concept of innate gender identity, but I will vote for the bill in the spirit of pragmatism and compromise because I accept that for a growing number of people identity is of deep personal significance. Sex is also a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and a census question for 200 years is particularly important for women that sex is recorded accurately because it is women who face most discrimination based on their sex. We also need to record sex to plan services such as health. The book Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez, a favourite of the First Minister, demonstrates that bodies don't just differ in terms of reproductive systems, but also in many other ways, for example the presentation of heart disease. The proposed non-binary sex question was rejected by the majority of the committee and, crucially, by the Office for National Statistics, ONS. ONS conducted a robust equality impact assessment on the census, whereas the same exercise by NRS in Scotland was inadequate. It did not consider sex as a separate characteristic, for example. The sex question should also be based on biological sex, in my view. In 2011, without any public scrutiny, the census had online guidance saying that the sex question could, for the first time, be answered according to how people felt. The briefing from Murray Blackburn Mackenzie points out that that decision was based on a flawed private consultants report that erroneously said that sex included gender reassignment. It also points out that, as we have no idea how many trans-identifying people, including non-binary, live in Scotland, no amount of testing by NRS can tell us how the data might be affected in 2021 by a self-identifying sex question. Professor Susan McVeigh, chair of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh, who sits on the Government's board of official statistics, told the committee that the self-identified question in 2021 was a mistake. In a further letter this week, she says that the conflation of sex and gender identity goes against equality's legislation and risks the construction of inaccurate and corrupted data. The inclusion of a trans-question for the first time means that people can express their identity and answer the sex question accurately. I am not convinced by briefings that refer to lived sex. There is no definition of lived sex in either law or biology. It is being suggested that feelings may be hurt if transgender people have to answer a question on biological sex, but there are other census questions that people could find distressing, such as on mental health and disability. They answer them knowing that the census remains confidential for 100 years, and trans people will, of course, on other occasions have to reference their birth sex, not least in regards to medical treatment. In conclusion, I hope that the cabinet secretary will take my points on board, and more importantly, the expertise of Professor McVeigh, Murray Black, Byrn MacKenzie and the Office of National Statistics. The census is the gold standard of statistics, and it is important that it is committed to both accuracy and material reality. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and to all the organisations that kindly sent three things ahead of this debate. It is only right that the census reflects the views of modern-day society, which is why I will be supporting this bill at stage 3 today. Things have moved forward since stage 1, and I am pleased to see that, during stage 2, clarity has been provided on how questions on sexual orientation and gender identity will be formatted. I also welcome further engagement regarding the wording of such questions, and that the Parliament will have the opportunity to consider future questions once finalised. The census is no insignificant task. It is completed every 10 years, and the next one is scheduled for March 2021. It gives us a complete picture of the nation, providing information needed by Governments in the UK to develop policy, plan and run public services, and allocate funding. With regard to equality data, it provides an opportunity to build on existing data so that public authorities can fulfil the public sector equality duty and consider the full needs of protected groups under the equality act. Times have moved on. More and more people are openly identifying as LGBT, and it is only right that the census reflects that. The bill will allow national records of Scotland to alter the current census to vary the questions that are asked, resulting in the inclusion of questions on prescribed aspects of gender identity and sexual orientation. It goes without saying that all that needs to be done with care and consideration. The purpose of the census, after all, is to collect data that is accurate and reliable. Questions should be clear and straightforward. Given the need for individuals' privacy, they should only be answered on a voluntary basis without the threat of penalty. We have to understand that not everyone will feel comfortable providing that information, in that, in homes where the form is being completed by the head of the household, young people in particular may not want to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity. I am therefore pleased that those questions will be voluntary and that national records of Scotland have committed to ensuring that individuals can submit a private response to the census, replacing any response that is submitted on their behalf. I am also pleased that, at stage 2, the cabinet secretary altered the bill to place transstatus in history as an entry on their own alongside religion and sexual orientation, removing concerns about the perceived conflation of gender and sex. It is reassuring to see that the national records of Scotland worked with the equality network and others on the specific texts of the amendments before they were lodged and that no issues were raised with stakeholders, including women's groups that provided evidence at stage 1. Significantly, it is also welcome that, given the actual inclusion or wording of any such question is not within the scope of the bill, that will be subject to further engagement with national records of Scotland and stakeholders. I am also reassured by the fact that the Scottish Parliament will have the right to consider and reject a future question should it see fit, meaning that all evidence can again be duly considered. I would like to reassure my support for the bill at stage 3. This is a short but much needed bill that will allow the census to reflect modern-day society. By passing this bill, we can hopefully build an existing equality data and assist public authorities in fulfilling the needs of protected groups. Stuart McMillan will be followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The bill, which is largely technical in nature, has caused a stir in terms of some of the public debate. The bill simply seeks to amend the enabling powers of the 1820 act. It has, as has been stated before by the cabinet secretary, a period of informal engagement with the committee regarding the questions that will begin after this stage 3 process. My focus today is solely on the contents of the bill and what that is intended to do, but I will touch upon one other aspect shortly. However, I welcome the passage of the bill through Parliament and I recognise how important it is to keep the census up-to-date with society. During the passage of the bill, I realised that I was the only committee member who was on the then committee, which actually scrutinised the then census order for the 2011 census. However, it did strike me at regarding how much society has changed over the course of the past 10 years. Society is more open and more tolerant, but there is still a long, long way to go. The bill being brought forward along to allow the census to deal with today's society and beyond is therefore very important. Ross Greer touched upon the aspect of the census and the question on the voluntary basis regarding the transgender status. Ross Greer touched upon the issue of the NHS and the NHS using their own data. The fact is that, certainly from the policy memorandum, section 17 of the policy memorand touched upon the issue of the lack of data regarding transgender. That is where I can understand why the NHS will use their own data. First of all, that data is not there at the moment, but secondly, when the census takes place in 2021, that will be the data at that particular period of time. In the 10 years after that, things will change hugely. I generally can understand why the NHS will have to go and use their own data. During the stage 1 debate 28 February, I quoted paragraphs 11 and 75 from our committee report. Paragraph 11 is stated that the committee agrees that there has been considerable social change with regard to issues concerning sexual orientation since 2011. Paragraph 75 of the report contained a quote from the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary stated 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. The statements were absolutely correct then, as they certainly are now, and they will be in the future going forward. The bill before us recognises both the importance and the sensitivity of the new questions, and it is trying to mitigate the concerns about intrusion into private life by placing the questions on that voluntary basis, as colleagues have stated. The main policy aim of the bill is not to facilitate the asking of questions about transgender matters and sexual orientation, but to make answering those questions voluntary. That would be in the same way that the religion question was placed on a voluntary basis by the Census Amendment Scotland Act 2000. The census questions are otherwise compulsory. I am pleased that the technical bill will pass through Parliament today and that we will have a census fit for 2021 that that can certainly be delivered. Also, when people fill it out and the data then comes out as a consequence of that, people can actually have trust and faith in it. However, as others colleagues have indicated this afternoon, there will be plenty of time to discuss the gender recognition issues. Clearly, there are differing views, but I echo the calls from colleagues across the chamber today. In order to have those discussions and to have them carried out in a professional manner, I genuinely ask people to do it in a calm manner and also with respect, because generally there are people who will have differing views, and it is important that all views are heard. Tom Arthur, to be filled by Pauline McNeill. Listening to the debate so far, I think that it would be easy to speak for only 30 seconds or alternatively speak for 30 minutes, given some of the issues that I have touched on. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work and their endeavours and getting to a stage where we can debate stage 3 without any amendments. I also want to put in record my thanks to all the organisations that gave evidence to the committee and provided briefings ahead of the debate, which has helped to inform my understanding. To some extent, the bill's importance and significance is in inverse relation to its size, and that is a point that many members have touched on, including Jamie Greene and Ross Greer, who described it as being a very short and simple bill. However, often with issues that are perhaps short and simple, we can find the fishers in our public discourse and expand them quite considerably. However, in general principles of the bill, which, to an extent, this debate is a rehash of what we had at stage 1, I agree with entirely, and placing on a statutory footing the questions of sexual orientation and trans-history as a voluntary question are very welcome. I also want to welcome the fact that this census in 2021 will be a predominantly digital census, but with provisions in place for people who are not able to participate digitally. I will be interested in the implications that it has for expediting the production of the data, because I am going to be fascinated to see the data that emerges out of the census. The census in 2021 comes at a very significant time, not just for Scotland but for the world, because we are seeing in many quarters, I do not want to see attention, but a very strong dialogue taking place between different generations. Generation Z, those born in 1996, are now coming of age. Millennials, such as myself, born between 1980 and 1986, are not quite at the knackersyard, but it sometimes feels like we are heading that way. I do not worry, I will not go on to the generation Xers and the baby boomers of indeed the silent generation. The reality is from this, the data from this has very significant and real-world implications in terms of shaping public policy. As Tavish Scott said, we have a task every decade in making sure that we get this census absolutely right. I think that the process for this bill has been commendable and working forward. I hope that the process that is characterised, or the tenor that is characterised, of this bill moving through Parliament will inform the conversations and discussions that we have in the next parliamentary year when we look at the census order. I certainly do not envy those charged with devising questions. It is an extremely complex issue because identity is an extremely complex issue, but while a census is an event, it is a cumulative intergenerational process. In concluding, one remark I would like to make reflecting on the 2011 census, which included—it was a very welcome inclusion—a question on carers. Within that census, 429,000 people identified as carers, but in a subsequent Scottish health and experience survey, 759,000 people identified as carers. There were a number of complex reasons for that, and I think that I have reported it to highlight that during carers week, but that is because not everyone who is a carer realises that they are a carer, so there is a constant need for work and guidance to help people to understand the questions that they are being asked and to understand its relevancy to their own lives, their own circumstances and their own experiences. I hope that we can continue to take a very moderate and considered approach as we progress through the process towards the census in considering the questions themselves later on in this parliamentary session. I would like to join with other members in thanking the committee for their hard work in reaching this point, making it relatively straightforward for the rest of us, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks by Tavys Scott and others about the importance of having a debate in this sphere with respect and dignity, which has to be applied universally. Allowing questions on the purpose of the bill, allowing questions on sexual orientation and prescribed aspects of gender identity is the purpose of the bill to do it on a voluntary basis. I think that it is a big step, but it is an absolutely essential one, essential that no-one should be fine for not answering it. Of course, as the minister, cabinet secretary, says, followed by SSIs, there is always a catch, there is always SSIs. However, the importance of the census as a tool in understanding— I certainly will. Had the member been listening to the debate, I noticed that she was in conversation for the first three quarters of an hour with her colleague, but it is not just the case of any other SSI. The difference with the census bill is that it has a different procedure, and therefore it is not just like any other procedures. When the final questions come, the role for the Parliament and particularly the parliamentary committee is quite, quite, quite different from the regular SSIs. Polly-Migail. Oh, well, that will teach me. Oh, well, I apologise to the cabinet secretary. She thought I was being flippant. I wasn't meaning to be. I do recognise the importance of the census as a tool in understanding the maker of society, and we are fortunate that we have been running it for 100 years, because all of Scotland's citizens should feel able to answer the census, and at the same time the purpose of the census and data collection is done to allow Governments to drop the appropriate policy and services to the population. In a helpful briefing, Stonewall outlines some of the important purposes of the bill to have authoritative data on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, assist public authorities to meet the statutory requirements, changing over time, and the planning of service provisions in advance of LGBT equality. That data can be used to build an evidence base and measuring progress on meetings. I think that it's important to note that we do also have to measure the progress when we have the data collection. We also lack this kind of information, and we need it to decide how to shape the services for the LGBT community. We desperately need it, and we desperately need it for trans people who face difficulties in their daily lives. In our recent cases on MSP, I took on the case of a transgender woman who was advised seven days before an employment tribunal that she would no longer get the legal representation that she was promised. I believe that there are deeply rooted issues in employment law for transgender people. It's a real experience for people, and I think that it's something that we could look at to give support in that regard. LGBT Scotland, in a survey in 2017, identified that 85 per cent of LGBT people said that transphobia was an issue, and 41 per cent of young trans people had experienced a hate crime in the previous year. In the last debate, I asked the minister—I was listening then—if she could clarify the definition of household and if we could be sensitive to the fact that many LGBT young people who may or may not be comfortable with telling their family what their identity is, just to be sure that we've dealt with that question correctly, and I look forward to an answer on that. The cabinet secretary can perhaps add that to her concluding comments. Can I call Annabelle Ewing, who's the last of our opening speakers before we move to closing speeches. I am pleased to have been called to speak in this debate this afternoon on stage 3 of the Census Amendment Scotland bill. At the outset, I too would like to thank the committee clerks and SPICE for all their hard-working connection with the bill, and, as we have heard, it was not matters within the formal scope of the bill itself that were at issue, but rather wider issues regarding the wording of the mandatory sex question that will fall to be agreed in terms of secondary legislation to be brought forward and understand next year. Before turning to that issue, it is important to stress that there was consensus around the purpose of the bill. Specifically, all committee members supported introducing questions on a voluntary basis as to sexual orientation and trans status and history. The only issue that arose here was the confusing drafting in the original version of the bill that risks conflating sex with gender identity. However, the cabinet secretary made it clear that it was never the intention behind the bill to conflate sex and gender identity, and, as promised, came forward with amendments at stage 2 to rectify matters. The cabinet secretary also confirmed her support further to the committee's recommendation that individuals' privacy rights be respected when completing the form. I am pleased to note that that perhaps helps Pauline McNeill to give her some relief that, in fact, national records for Scotland is developing a system to allow individuals to complete an individual form in private at a very important point. The next steps further to the bill will be for close engagement, as far as I understand it, on the wording of the voluntary questions with both the committee and wider stakeholders involved. I look forward to that process. Finally, it would be perhaps remiss of me not to mention the wider debate that was generated on the mandatory sex question, even though, as I say, it was not within the formal scope of the bill itself. However, the committee recognised the strongly held views on the matter. It nonetheless recommended that the mandatory sex question remained binary by a vote of six in favour to one against with two abstentions. I entirely support that recommendation. In that regard, evidence was received on the scientifically grounded theory of human sexual dimorphism, and we were reminded that sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It was also queried as to how any other approach could ensure that the census adhered to the highest statistical standards and provide longitudinal consistency. As the convener of the committee has referred to, Professor Susan McVeigh, chair of quantitative criminology at the University of Edinburgh, has said to the committee members recently in the letter. I quote, "...the conflation of sex and gender identity goes against existing inequalities legislation and risks the construction of inaccurate and corrupted data that are not fit for the purposes for which the census and other official data sources are required." Indeed, it would be important to reiterate the point that I made at stage 1 about how national records for Scotland would proceed if there was a non-binary question under the mandatory sex question heading. That was an important point raised this afternoon by Claire Baker, but it gets to the crux of the matter. I will mention again that the head of census statistics at national records for Scotland, Amy Wilson, said in evidence to the committee that national records for Scotland would, and I quote, "...randomly assign people back into the male and female categories", and that it would, and I quote, "...still produce outputs on a male and female basis." That begs the question as to what would be the point of including such a non-binary question in our national census, a route that the ONS in England and Wales has, in fact, recommended against taking. That debate is, of course, for another day, but given the considerable amount of evidence received on the subject, I feel that it is important to make mention of that issue this afternoon. In conclusion, I would wish to stress my support for the census bill, and I look forward to voting for the bill at stage 3 this afternoon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much for doing that, and we turn now to closing speeches. I call on Claire Baker to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's been an interesting debate, which has inspired conversations in the chamber, as well as speeches. While it is the final piece of legislation, in many ways it has been the opening conversation on future debates on gender identity and the census, on reform of the Gender Recognition Act and transgender rights. Although the debate has been wide-ranging, we should not lose sight of what the bill is achieving. For the first time, the 2021 census will collect information on a person's sexual orientation and transgender status and history, if they wish to answer those questions. The census strives to be accessible, relevant and maintain integrity in the data. It is important that those questions are asked on a voluntary basis, and that is a position that is widely supported. I understand that work is on going to ensure individual respondents' confidentiality and be sensitive to their needs, and I would appreciate an update on that work. The census is important for work of public bodies in making key decisions about resource allocation, policy development and how services are planned. By gathering that additional information, the needs of the LGBT community can be better served and understood, as Jamie Greene highlighted in his opening speech. Returning to the issue of the sex question, it is interesting to consider the work of the ONS, who are considering the same issue. They have concluded that there would be a risk to the data if data collected on sex have a third option where to be added to that question, although Ross Greer set out his belief that that question should be included and gave the arguments for that position. As we are agreeing today, voluntary questions will be added on transgender identity, and the ONS thinks that it can meet the needs of this group. They are proposing that the sex question remains unchanged, as Annabelle Ewing has just stated. It is interesting that, depending on testing, the ONS proposes a caveat in the sex question to explain that a gender question will follow later in the questionnaire. They have stated that that has been found to increase the acceptability among the transgender and non-binary populations, and it will be interesting to hear whether or not that is an option that has been explored in Scotland. It is concerning that elements of the debate around those issues has become toxic. That is a situation of misrepresentation and accusations. That presents a challenging environment for the Parliament to consider the reforms to the gender recognition act, which is a parallel issue to the debate, and one that has added an intensity to the discussion of a census bill that was perhaps not anticipated. Murray Blackburn MacKenzie's briefing sets out concerns over what they describe as losing sight of women's interests. Those were issues that were raised by John McAlpine this afternoon. There are concerns that the protected characteristic of sex has been diminished, even ignored. Those points must not be dismissed. They need to be addressed. We must not close down debate, and open debate has to take place without fear or threat to anyone. I have heard comments this afternoon that society is changing, but to ensure that Scotland is a safe, welcoming, respectful country for everyone, we need to progress with understanding and work to achieve a degree of consensus. Reform of the GRA is necessary, and the Government is not the direct responsibility of today's cabinet secretary. The Government needs to be clear about its intentions and bring the debate to parliamentary scrutiny. The debate that is dominating public discourse often does not recognise other issues that affect LGBT people. The LGBT population is subject to multiple disadvantages in the workplace, in education and in civic Scotland. We know that prejudice exists towards the LGBT community and that physical and verbal assault is all too common. Access to appropriate health services is not always easy, and it is compounded by Scotland's geography. As Pauline McNeill highlighted, LGBT Youth Scotland reports that 84 per cent of young people who are LGBT and 96 per cent of trans young people feel that they have experienced a mental health problem. LGBT people can face isolation from their families and communities. I fully recognise the concerns that have been expressed around what changes to the GRA will mean for women and girls, and what that means in terms of women's rights. However, we must also recognise that the LGBT communities are 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 proposed changes. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to be able to close for the Scottish Conservatives on today's stage 3 debate on the Census Amendment Scotland Bill. It has been very interesting to hear the contributions from across the chamber this afternoon, and as a committee member myself, I very much welcome the progress and thank all those who have contributed and given evidence and supported and given us briefings during this whole process. It is quite obvious that there is a real depth of feeling on this issue. This is a short but very important bill and will ensure that the information collected for future census will help us to better understand the modern Scotland and the people who live here. That was outlined by Jamie Greene earlier in his contribution. However, we have had some very good and balanced contributions from across the chamber this afternoon, from Tavish Scott, from Ross Greer, Claire Baker and from Joan McAlpine. As has been discussed, the Equalities Act requires public sector organisations to consider the needs of groups with protected characteristics, such as when they are delivering services in their own environment and for employment practices. In particular, we take regard to the need to ensure that individuals are not discriminated, harassed, victimised and the equality and the opportunity between different groups to ensure that they foster good relations between them is vitally important. That was also itemised by my colleague Annie Wells. We have had, as we have already heard, some very strong views from organisations such as Stonewall and others when they are briefings about what that should do and how that should be informed in our debate and discussion. In order to perform the duties of public sector, bodies require reliable data on protected characteristics. Those remain significant gaps and we have seen that in the data regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. In particular, the National Records of Scotland says that there is not currently reliable data that is sourced at the size and locality of the trans community that is living within Scotland. That is one of the major reasons for requiring an update in the census legislation, and I believe that the bill will help better to allow public sector organisations to fulfil their equality duties. It is also worth noting that similar information has been done south of the border. The UK Government, in the form of a white paper and the Office of National Statistics, both recommend that the English and Welsh in 2021 census should include questions on both sexual orientation and gender identity, and that, like us, that would be on a voluntary basis. From our own presentations on the Scotland Conservatives, we wanted to ensure that there was guidance and that it was outlined and clearly explained the difference between sex and gender identity. Those are often conflated and also in the questions on gender and sexual orientation are voluntary and there are no penalties for those who choose not to answer them. It is welcome that the wording in the questions will be tested, there will be consultation and there will be engagement with national records of Scotland and other stakeholders. However, we were still keen to ensure that a duty was placed on the Scottish ministers to review the success or otherwise of the proposed questions of sexual orientation and gender identity, and it is vitally important that, during that part, it is placed on the census. At the second stage of using Jamie Greene MSP put forward amendments on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives to seek to address some of those issues. Following discussion with the cabinet secretary, she supported and indicated that those amendments could be brought forward and that there was little requirement for us to do that. We felt that that was appropriate and we actually would do the amendments. As we have already heard in the debate, the proposals have cross-party support and it has been great to see what we have said here today in this chamber, because it is good for this Parliament to have this kind of discussion, but it is also good for Scotland to have this kind of discussion, Presiding Officer. The changes brought about by the bill will also have the backing of organisations outside Holyneud and we have had briefings from many of those organisations telling us exactly what they felt and what they thought we should be doing as a Parliament to support the communities outside this Parliament. Indicated also from the Law Society, they were very happy and welcomed that there was clarity about the question and the voluntary basis of that. In conclusion, we are supportive of the bill to include questions on gender identity and sexual orientation to future censuses and the voluntary basis. We are content with the assurances that have been given, because that will have a massive impact on the review of us going forward. We believe that it is good for Scotland and that the bill sets out exactly what is required, so we look forward to seeing what progress will be taken once that passes today. I am grateful to my parliamentary colleagues here today for another useful debate on these sensitive matters. I am pleased that stakeholders, the committee and Parliament have supported the key principles of the census bill throughout the process. It is right that those questions should be voluntary. It is also critical that all census respondents clearly know that voluntary means just that and that there will be no penalty for not answering those questions. I have made it very clear from the beginning of the process that the single purpose of the bill is to remove criminal penalty from those questions and make them voluntary rather than the standard compulsory. Work is in hand by national records of Scotland to ensure that it is communicated, which includes embedding the words that this question is voluntary into the text of the new questions so that the census respondents are not required to cross-refer to separate instructions to find this information out. That is what was done with the religion question in the 2011 census. However, after discussion at stage 2, the register general has also confirmed that he will make this clear in the covering message on the front of the census as well as in the supporting guidance. I am confident that the messaging of voluntary will be very clear. Stakeholders have been involved throughout the planning for 2021 to ensure that national records of Scotland will be asking the right questions in the right way. National records of Scotland carried out a public consultation between 2015 and January 2016 in order to understand what information users needed from the census in 2021. That is worth stressing that the purpose of the census primarily is to identify what needs there are and to ensure that those needs can be met. I think that there has been a number of good contributions about why we need to have more information in particular about sexual orientation and transgender issues. I think that that was a point made by a number of the contributors—Claire Baker, Jamie Greene and others—and that is the critical point of the census. That work included working directly with a wide range of stakeholders that involve thousands of people in Scotland from across society. The census bill process has highlighted that we must continue to ensure that the identity of all individuals and groups that have an interest in census matters and ensure that the new relationships are developed between them and the national records of Scotland. It is also critical that Stakeholders continue to be kept informed and where possible are able to influence the plan up until census day. You will raise the issue of households. I did reply to her after stage 1 with information, but I will also copy to her the information that we gave to the committee, particularly about the sensitivities about households and individuals, perhaps those who have not come out in relation to the rest of their families but want to take part in the census and how that will be done to respect confidentiality and be discreet. The census bill has been the first direct involvement in Scotland's 2021 census for the Scottish Parliament. It has clearly stimulated debate and interests in the census, as we now move forward to the subordinate legislation process. We have the critical requirements of a census order and census regulations to be put in force before we can have a census in 2021. That will involve extensive work by the parliamentary committee. In advance, I appreciate the work that they have put into date, but it is a considerable amount of work to go forward in relation to those orders and regulations. Work has already been progressed with the Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Committee to ensure that they all have the necessary information this year to thoroughly and appropriately consider those matters. Passing the census bill will mean that we can ask questions on sexual orientation and transgender status and history on a voluntary basis, but Parliament still has to agree that those questions will in fact be asked in the 2021 census. Although I detect from the contributions from today, there is a willingness and appreciation that that should be the case. There are other questions and other census matters that will be considered by the committee and wider Parliament as we progress through the process. The questions are clearly a critical part of census, but National Records of Scotland is currently planning the whole operation for a successful digital census in 2021. There is only 648 days to go until census day. The responsibility and influence of Parliament does not end at census day, though. I mentioned in my opening address the plans of National Records of Scotland to process and output census data. The register general will also be preparing reports on the census returns and laying those before the Scottish Parliament at the appropriate time after the census. That is obviously data content, but also in terms of operation. In addition to those specific reports, the register general will also be preparing a comprehensive report on the overall census operation. That will include an evaluation of the new questions being asked in 2021, including the voluntary ones and sexual orientation and transgender status in history. That report will also be brought to Parliament for consideration. As you can see, National Records of Scotland has a thorough process in place to collect process and output census data, but also to ensure appropriate consideration and evaluation of those matters. One of the things that has been raised in the committee report, but also in contributions from Ross Greer and Clare Baker, is the question is, will the sex question be on the basis of live sex? That is not the purpose of this bill. Indeed, I agree with Jamie Greene and his approach that his focus and remarks were specifically about the content of the bill, but reflecting the process when considering the actual wording of that question will come next as part of the process. I want to make my point here. I have already communicated to the committee that it is really important that people have confidence in using the census data and in completing the data. That is one of the issues in terms of that wording. However, I want to stress—this is the point that I made to Pauline McNeill—that it will be for the committee to consider on the basis of all evidence provided. Further testing, which is currently taking place and consultation with stakeholders, is only when we have done that we will be able to determine what that question will be. That is quite different about this process compared to other processes. In presenting the final census order, I need to know that there will be agreement on that final census order in its completeness. That is why NRS needs to work very closely with the committee to share the evidence of what works, look at comparisons with other countries, including the rest of the UK, but also Australia, Canada and other places where that is taking place. That is the right way to go. I cannot definitively give Ross Greer that answer or give anybody else that answer, because that is the collaborative co-operative process that is involved in putting the census together. In concluding, I thank everyone again who has contributed throughout the process of the census bill and to this debate today. The 2021 census will be our first predominantly digital one, but for it to be successful, we must ensure that we are asking the right questions in the most appropriate way. Finally, I repeat my thanks to all those who gave evidence to help to improve the bill during its parliamentary process, particularly to our colleagues in the national records of Scotland and the bill team, and I commend the motion in my name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes our debate on the census amendment Scotland bill. The next item is consideration of business motion 17671 in the name of Graham Day. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, I call on Graham Day to move the motion. Thank you very much and no one has asked to speak against that motion. The question therefore is that this motion 17671 be agreed or well agreed. That is agreed. I will just draw members' attention that we have provisionally put in a seven o'clock decision time on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Do you have just voted for it? The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 17672 in approval of an SSI. I call on Graham Day in behalf of the bureau to move the motion. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. So we turn to decision time. The first question is that motion 17645 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the census amendment Scotland bill be agreed and this is a bill members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17645 in the name of Fiona Hyslop is, yes, 115, there were no votes against, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed and the census amendment Scotland bill is passed. The question is that motion 17672 in the name of Graham Day on approval of an SSI be agreed, are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed and that concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to members' business in the name of Johann Lamont on new report calls for more housing co-ops in Scotland. We will just take a few moments for minister, the members and members of the public gallery also to change seats. We will just take a few moments pause.