My Lords, perhaps it would help if I made a contribution, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, rightly addressed the amendment for government consideration.
We recognise the strength of feeling behind the noble Lord’s representation on this issue; he is supported in several other parts of the House. We share the view that it is imperative that the board is able fully to assess and address the needs of those who rely on statistics for local and regional level policy-making, which is the burden of his case. We recognise that the availability of such statistics is increasingly important and that statistics are required from neighbourhood level, through local and regional level, up to national level. As I indicated in Committee, we want a tight and cohesive board, with members appointed collectively to represent a wide range of interests. We want to retain as much flexibility as possible to establish the right mix of people to achieve that and to serve the public interest; we do not want to stipulate interest groups that must be consulted. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that that raises some problems in producing an exhaustive and comprehensive list.
I hear what the noble Baroness says, that it is a pity that subsection (4) is in the Bill. However, as I said in Committee, the reason the list exists at all is that the Cabinet Office must consult the devolved Administrations on appointments. Under the devolution settlement, the devolved Administrations have responsibility for devolved matters, including the production of statistics relating to those matters. By accepting this legislation, the devolved Administrations agreed that the board should have jurisdiction over devolved statistics produced by those Administrations. I am sure that the House will recognise the advantage of that for the development of the quality of statistics in this area. Giventhe constitutional responsibilities of the devolved Administrations for those statistics, it is right that the legislation should explicitly specify that each legislature should be consulted on the appointment of one member.
We recognise the significance of the concern about statistics for local policy-making. I bear in mind particularly the points made today on migration statistics and the difficulty that they produce for local authorities. The ONS has been working with local authorities and government departments to identify how new and existing sources can be used to inform migration estimates. In 2005, detailed case studies were started in four local authorities to investigate the potential for alternative sources and methods. Two of the studies were in London—in Barnet and in Hammersmith and Fulham. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, emphasised the London dimension of those problems. Reports on the completed studies in London will be published on the ONS website in June this year.
In response to the letter that was identified on the concerns of the London councils about the position, David Rhind, chair of the Statistics Commission, set out the action that he believed was necessary to improve migration statistics. He contested that it would be wrong to simply blame the Office for National Statistics. We need to change practices, and to obtain better estimates the ONS will need to receive raw information on people moving into and around the country, not only from local government and the department concerned but from other national departments in Whitehall: the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department of Health. What is clearly needed is a sound system for people entering the country and their destinations. That has implications for data protection and it has technical implications. Any data on individuals would have to be kept totally confidential. The House will recognise that the Bill makes great strides in giving the powers and reassurance on that front, and we willbe discussing a dimension of that issue later this afternoon.
I seek to respond to the very proper cases raised: the general one made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the more specific one of our present difficulties with regard to certain migration statistics which have profound implications for local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. I emphasise that we are obliged, and are taking steps, to improve the statistical basis for policy making in this crucial area; but the reason we have stipulated that there must be consultation in regard to only three board members is the specific requirements regarding the devolved Administrations in how this legislation works.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will, therefore, not conclude that the issue relating to the devolved Administrations has been put in a higher category than those relating to local government in England; the issues are different. There is a legal requirement to take account and to consult Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; otherwise, we would not have been as specific in the Bill and I would have met the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the extent to which the legislation is specific. I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured that there is no way that the Statistics Board, when established, can be anything other than completely cognisant of the significance of local and regional statistics to its work.
Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c15-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:58:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403469
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403469
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403469