Official Statistics Order 2009

The noble Lord is a very old and wise former secretary to a department. He knows precisely that I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting solely that he has raised evidence about a Select Committee report in another place which is dealing with the problem. I am suggesting that we await that report. The Ministers concerned are Ministers in another place. That is the appropriate course of action. I now turn to some of the points raised. If I do not do justice to them, I am more than happy to reply in writing because all three noble Lords made points in their contributions. I start with the points about the Bank of England, which is not included. The authority and the bank have been in regular contact with each other through 2008. They have agreed not to include the bank in the 2009 order. That is with the consent of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The bank has its own code of practice for statistics, which works well for its specific and important role. It passes a lot of data to the ONS and any resulting statistics, including parts of the national accounts and much of the Financial Statistics publication, are national statistics and so are fully compliant with the authority’s code. The point of greater interest is why we are not including the bank at the present time. Those discussions are continuing. The bank sometimes collects data which it decides not to publish even without announcing that it will not publish them. That would go against the code as it stands—in this case, on the protocol on release practices. As I said, the bank and the authority are working closely to see how best to use the code in a specific area of monetary and financial statistics in a way that does not hinder the bank's ability to perform its duties effectively. That is the current position in respect of the Bank of England. The other points raised included a sensible point from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, about having a clearer understanding of which bodies were new and which had been dropped. Those dropped from the first order tended to be dropped because they were not producing national statistics or continuing to exist beyond 2009. They include the British Hallmarking Council, the Fleet Air Arm Museum, the Hearing Aid Council, the National Army Museum, the Royal Air Force Museum, the Royal Marines Museum, the Royal Naval Museum and the Royal Navy Submarine Museum. That is because they are not producing significant national-level statistics. Also excluded are the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the Commission for the New Towns, the Housing Corporation and the Urban Regeneration Agency. That is because, as the Committee will have spotted, they are due for abolition on or before 1 April 2009. The first two bodies in the list will be replaced by the Care Quality Commission and the second two as a result of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. None of the statistics has been lost, but will be picked up in respect of the replacement bodies. I hope that that assists with that particular question. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether there were surveys. The ONS produces a regular annual survey, which is how it hopes to glean the increasing confidence that it expects to get from the improved performance, notwithstanding the highly rehearsed question about the statistics produced and released prematurely in December. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, to answer his question about statistics and the consultation about statistics. That covers most of the points raised by noble Lords. I will examine Hansard tomorrow, and if there are any points that I have not covered, I will write to noble Lords. With that, I beg to move. Motion agreed.