Perhaps I may make two brief points. The Minister has not responded to or commented on the main argument for the move to the Cabinet Office, which is the co-ordination argument. He has failed to recall that we are dealing with a decentralised system, so how can one argue that the Treasury, as one of the key consumers, would be a less biased head than the Cabinet Office? However, my real reason for speaking again is to address the Minister’s seemingly powerful point that this is such a minor issue that it does not warrant such an apparently major attack. I shall come clean. When the whole idea of the transfer was first mentioned, I had many opportunities to hold talks with Treasury officials and Ministers, and I was impressed by the idea of a board which was going to have total responsibility. However, the more I talked, the more I realised that the Treasury was going to hang on to quite a lot of the so-called residual responsibilities, some of which have entered the drafting of the Bill and some of which have not. The longer that went on, the more I realised that the Treasury—I am not talking about funding—was intent on remaining a powerful head of the whole operation. That is when I became fairly keen on trying to get it moved back to the Cabinet Office.
Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Moser
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 April 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c600-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:27:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391693
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391693
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391693