Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: Clause 10, page 5, line 20, leave out ““National”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak also to the other amendments in the group, some of which are government amendments and some of which are opposition amendments. The government amendments in this group are aimed at addressing a number of the concerns eloquently expressed in this House in relation to the coverage of the statistical system that is established by this Bill. They aim to clarify and further underscore the Government’s intentions in a number of areas around the code of practice and official and national statistics, and they will add even greater transparency to the new statistical system that we are creating. They reflect, as we have been clear from the outset, that the Government intend to retain the established distinction between official and national statistics. At the heart of that is the desire for the new independent board to be responsible for promoting and safeguarding the quality and comprehensiveness of a very broad range of statistics. It reflects a desire that the definitions used in the Bill will well serve the statistical system and all who use its outputs both now and in the future. As such, the Government have been concerned to ensure that the Bill includes as broad and flexible a definition of ““official statistics”” as possible. There has never been a legal definition of ““official statistics”” in the United Kingdom, nor is there an agreed international definition, and at the start of this process it was not immediately clear the best way in which to define it. While we considered linking the definition to the professional group that producedthe statistics, the Government Statistical Service, the Government wanted to avoid a definition that would unnecessarily limit the role envisaged for the board, given developments in statistical production and activity in Government. Members of the Government Statistical Service are no longer the sole producers of statistical information within government and, indeed, many of the key statistics that the public use to judge the Government’s performance come from administrative sources, the production of which may not be within the direct control of the statistical head of profession in a department. We have, therefore, concluded that the definition of official statistics should include all those statistics produced by the 200-plus government departments, agencies, devolved administrations and any other person acting on behalf of the Crown. Such a definition meets our goal of a definition that is both very wide and, we hope, future-proofed. However, having opted for that wide definition of official statistics, it was necessary to focus and prioritise the application of the formal assessment against the code established in Clauses 11 and 12. The aim was to help ensure that greater resource is devoted to statistics that have relatively greater importance, not just for policy makers, but for business, academia and the wide range of other users. The current set of around 1,300 national statistics provides the key statistics that the Government, business and the public rely on to provide an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK. I am sure that the House recognises the challenges that the new board would encounter if it were legally bound to undertake a formal assessment of the vast and expanding number of official statistics, given the likely resource implications for the board and those being assessed. I expect that the added credibility that will come from securing independent endorsement of the quality and integrity of a set of statistics—and indeed, the public and parliamentary scrutiny that will inevitably follow a Minister’s refusal to comply with a board’s request to put a statistic forwardfor assessment—will incentivise the evolution and expansion of the national statistics system. The Government’s broad case is that there is already a substantial number of national statistics and that it is bound to expand under pressuresfrom wider society. We have already seen illustrations and evidence of that this afternoon. Because the board has an assessment role, we need to draw a line on the level of obligation that we can place on the board. Government Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 17, 27 and 36 will change the name of the code of practice for national statistics to the code of practice for statistics. This change is aimed at making the intention more explicit; clarifying that the code is not something that applies only to national statistics. I note that those amendments are similar in objective to Amendments Nos. 7 and 11 of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Another issue that has caused concern in this House has been compulsory compliance with the code of practice. On this, I believe it is already clear that to gain the national statistics designation, statistics will need to be independently assessed by the board against the standards in the code and be adjudged to have complied with them. However, I note that this issue has caused not inconsiderable worry in this House. To reassure the House, Amendment No. 15 has been drafted to require any person producing any national statistic to ensure that the code of practice is complied with. I should emphasise that this duty applies not only to statisticians, but to every individual within a department who plays a role in the process—from those involved in preparing briefing for Ministers to the press officers, and everyone in between. If the board is not convinced of this compliance across the production process, national statistics status will not be granted. I remain unconvinced, however, of the need for such a clause to go beyond a general duty to comply by also covering issues of interpretation and reporting breaches; that is what Amendment No. 8, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seeks to achieve. The Government have decided that the way in which we will enforce compliance with the code is through an assessment of statistics against the standards set out in it. I think that noble Lords are agreed that conducting such an assessment is an appropriate way to ensure compliance. As to the sanction, we are of the view that what is appropriate is that if statistics do not meet the standards in the code, the statistics in question will not be granted, or will not retain, national statistics status. This will be a very public and transparent process, and that surely must be right. It also reflects the fact that there are not many attractive alternatives to de-designation as a sanction. If the process were applied to all official statistics, what would be the sanction for non-compliance? Alternative sanctions to de-designation would be some form of legal action—to compel compliance with the code. Would it not be somewhat heavy handed if a producer of official statistics could be subject to judicial review proceedings if it produces a set of statistics—on, say, the number of television licences that it holds—that is not fully compliant with the code? It is for that reason that the Government have made it clear in Amendment No. 15 that the sanction flowing from failure to comply with the code in relation to national statistics is a prohibition on the board confirming or designating national statistics status. That is a sanction. To my mind, this poses enough of a threat strongly to encourage compliance. I am not convinced of the need to allow for statistical producers to be threatened with some form of legal action to compel compliance with the code. The change in Amendment No. 22 is aimed at addressing some of the concerns raised in this House and in the other place in relation to strengthening the role of the board vis-à-vis Ministers in putting forward statistics for assessment. I note that the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby—Amendments Nos. 9 and 12—are aimed at a similar end, although they remove the role of Ministers entirely in the process, instead of allowing the board alone to initiate the assessment process. As I have explained in previous sittings, the Government are firmly of the view that in a decentralised system, the responsibility for submitting statistics for assessment must ultimately lie with departments. Ministers are responsible and accountable for allocating the resources in their departments, including those devoted to statistical production. Decisions on how to manage the resources of departments are properly taken by Ministers. Ministers are answerable to Parliament for their decisions. Giving the board the power to compel Ministers to take decisions about their departmental resources would undermine ministerial responsibility and accountability. That said, it has always been the Government’s expectation—as the Financial Secretary has said many times in the other place and as I have said in several sittings here—that the board, as part of its statutory responsibility to promote and safeguard the quality and comprehensiveness of official statistics, would comment publicly on the coverage of national statistics; that is, that the board would comment where there are official statistics that it considers should be independently assessed with a view to gaining national statistics status. Further consideration of this matter, however—in part informed by the persuasive arguments put forward in this House during our consideration of the Bill—have convinced us that there is benefit in making this a duty of the board, and placing it on the face of the Bill. As such, this amendment will require the board to call for a Minister or other appropriate authority to put forward a particular statistic for assessment, where it feels that the statistic in question would benefit from the full scrutiny of the formal assessment process established by Section 11. Under this new clause, where such a request is made of a Minister of the Crown, it must be laid before Parliament. On receipt of such a request, a Minister must publish a statement as to whether, and when, he or she will comply. Where the Minister does not wish to comply with the board’s request, the statement must include reasons for that decision. The amendment provides yet another opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the system, as both the formal request from the board to Ministers of the Crown and the response from Ministers to the board in relation to the nomination of a statistical series for assessment will be required to be placed before Parliament. Parliament will then be able to make its own judgment about the statistic in question, the validity of the board’s request and the Government’s response to that request. Clearly, in a situation where a Minister decides not to put forward a statistic for assessment following a request from the board, the Government fully expect Parliament to play a very active role in scrutinising the reasons put forward by the Minister in question, holding him to account for his decision. I believe that this new clause would be a worthy addition to our Bill in that it would serve to add further transparency and clarity to the statistical system that we are seeking to establish. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 22 will be accepted and that noble Lords opposite will not press their Amendments Nos. 9 and 12. I cannot support Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 and 18 to 21 in so far as they attempt to do away with the distinction between national and official statistics. I do not propose to address these amendments individually. As I have said several times already, the Government are committed to the maintenance of the national statistics system. I have advanced arguments as to why that is necessary and have also argued why the board should be given some responsibility for official statistics. I hope it will be seen that the Government have listened to strong arguments presented from all parts of the House on this very important part of the Bill and that we have tabled amendments which improve the Bill and which I hope can be supported. I beg to move.