New clause 4 is extraordinary, in the sense that we should not have to insert it into the Bill. It was always a weakness in the original framework for national statistics that the code was voluntary: no one had to comply with it. It is true that the Statistics Commission was able to pick out the worst reported, apparent or real breaches of the code in each year, and to name and shame particular Departments. It always seemed to be the same Departments, those dealing with health and housing, and the Scottish Executive was cited as well. They are all there in the annual reports of the Statistics Commission.
The naming and shaming of Departments is not in itself an insignificant process, but it is extraordinary that just when we are putting all this on to a statutory basis, the code of practice should remain voluntary. In other words, no one need comply with it. I consider that a serious weakness in the Bill: it means that the code of practice for statistics across Whitehall will have fewer teeth than the highway code that we must all observe when we drive our cars.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) would be right to press her point, and I hope that she will do so.
Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Michael Fallon
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 March 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c192-3 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:15:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384636
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384636
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384636