Pre-release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008

I thank the Minister for explaining the order, which deals with a very important subject. In the United Kingdom, according to the Royal Statistical Society’s response to the Cabinet Office consultation, pre-release access to statistics has been permitted to many more people, for much longer, and for many more statistical series than it has in other advanced nations. This, in its view, potentially creates mistrust in the public’s perception of the independence of official statistics and increases the risk of leaks and improper comment. Since 2000, even for the key market-moving statistics, again according to the Royal Statistical Society, Treasury Ministers have allowed something like a doubling of the number of people to whom pre-release access is granted. Leaks have shaken confidence in Treasury statistics just when confidence in the markets is so badly needed. The framework for statistics established by the Government in 2000 for the first time made explicit Ministers’ authority to determine who shall be granted pre-release access. Under this framework, departmental Ministers, including the Minister responsible for the ONS, determine which individuals should have access to national statistics produced by their respective departments in advance of their release, having first consulted the National Statistician. The Government have too frequently spun statistical announcements to suit their own purposes. On 12 September 2006, the Prime Minister outlined the latest unemployment figures to the TUC conference prior to the public release of that information the following day. The Royal Statistical Society commented in its response to the Government’s consultation that advance access to statistics leads to, "““mistrust of the independence of official statistics. It is this public and journalistic perception of mistrust which is at the heart of the problem””." The society would prefer the United Kingdom to follow the best practice of a number of advanced countries by dispensing with pre-release access altogether. Ministers would then only see the figures at the same time as journalists and everyone else. They would then issue a statement themselves, if necessary, later the same day. I can find no response from the Government to the points raised by the society but the Minister may care to comment on this. Sir Michael Scholar, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, the very body established under the Government’s Statistics and Registration Service Act, said that, "““the order is a welcome step forward in that it formally restricts pre-release access for the first time. But in the view of the Statistics Authority it still leaves government departments and ministers too much latitude. A system which continues to grant pre-access to statistics to ministers and officials, but not to other people, is unlikely to further our aim of promoting public trust in the Statistical Service””." He also said: "““The Authority’s draft Code of Practice … promotes the principles of equality of access to statistics and the release of statistics at the earliest possible opportunity. Pre-release access sits uncomfortably alongside these principles and must be kept to the minimum””." Again, I would be most grateful for the Minister’s response to these points. We on these Benches have been calling for some time for truly independent statistics, so we welcomed the Statistics and Registration Service Bill when it was published, although we felt that its proposals were too weak to ensure that statistics are genuinely independent of political interference. To recapitulate, our key issues with the Bill included the lack of an obligation for anyone actually to obey the code of practice; the fact that true independence of statistics would mean that all statistical activity in different government departments, not just national statistics, be subjected to the code of practice; the blurring of the lines between the executive and scrutiny functions of the Statistics Board; the fact that the board would be more credible if it were a part of Parliament, on similar lines to the National Audit Office, reporting to a committee of both Houses; and that the rules on pre-release access should be determined by the board and should be stricter. It is worthy of note that Section 11 of the Act explicitly states that the code of practice may not deal with any matter relating to the granting of pre-release access to official statistics, the rules and principles for which are to be provided by order by the appropriate authority. We have the following specific issues with the order. First, the definition of those who are eligible to receive pre-released information is far too broad. Secondly, it includes advisers, which could include, at least, special advisers and third-party consultants. Thirdly, there is too much subjectivity over the circumstances in which pre-release access can be extended over 24 hours. Fourthly, there is no information about the sanctions for transgression of the code; frankly, we doubt whether merely not being allowed access to future information is much of an imperative. Fifthly, Ministers have the flexibility to dribble early information of their own selection to selected journalists. I would be grateful for the Minister’s responses to these concerns. We are concerned that the Government have missed an opportunity, with the order as well as the Bill, substantially to strengthen the integrity and credibility of the system. The review in 12 months’ time is crucial, and we look forward to it with considerable interest.