Note from the Clerk of the House of Commons
INTRODUCTION
1. This note is submitted in response to
a request from the Sub-Committee for the views of the Clerk's
Department on the issues raised in paragraphs 4.40 and 4.41 of
HM Treasury's consultation document of March 2006 entitled Independence
for Statistics. In relation to paragraph 4.40, I have consulted
the Journal Office, which is the office in my department that
has responsibility for the processes and procedures for the laying
of papers before the House; and in relation to paragraph 4.41,
I have consulted the Table Office, as the office responsible for
dealing with parliamentary questions.
LAYING OF
ANNUAL REPORT
(PARAGRAPH 4.40)
2. The Government proposes that the board
of the new Office for National Statistics would be required to
publish an annual report which "would be laid before Parliament
directly by the board, rather than via a Minister." Papers
may be laid before the House of Commons only by a Member (generally
a Minister) or by the Clerk of the House "where there is
no directly relevant ministerial responsibility." [3]There
is therefore no current procedure by which the new body's annual
reports could be laid before Parliament directly by the board.
3. In the past the categories of papers
laid by the Clerk of the House have been relatively few. They
have included the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General
(the National Audit Office) and of the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration (the Ombudsman), both of whom are officers
of the House; certain papers generated within the House (such
as the Sessional Returns); and Church Measures.
4. Recently I have agreed also to lay reports
from certain health bodies where the Act required that they be
laid before being provided to the Secretary of State[4],
and from the Information Commissioner in the light of the independent
status of his office. In principle, I would be willing to lay
reports from the new Office of National Statistics, provided that
it was established with an equivalent independence from Government.
In that context, I note that the consultation document proposes
that the body should be established as a Non-Ministerial Department;
and its staff will continue to be civil servants (paragraphs 4.11
and 4.13). It would appear that a large proportion of statistics
will continue to be produced in government departments and agencies
rather than in ONS itself (paragraphs 2.6 and 4.35-4.37). I note
also that the annual reports of other Non-Ministerial Departments
(such as those mentioned as comparators in paragraph 4.11) are
laid by government Ministers. But the question of the independence
of the statistics office under the system proposed in the consultation
document is no doubt central to the Sub-Committee's inquiry. I
would obviously want to take account of the Sub-Committee's conclusions
on that issue before making a firm commitment.
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
(PARAGRAPH 4.41)
5. Paragraph 4.41 of the consultation document
outlines the existing arrangements. If the answer to a Question
falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician it
is given by letter from the ONS to the Member concerned. The answering
Minister sets out the text of the letter in his or her reply to
the Question (which is thus printed in the Official Report).
6. The consultation document suggests that
these arrangements might continue after the ONS becomes a statutorily
independent body. It suggests an alternative: that "formally
presenting such statistical answers to each House could be done
via the Chairs of the committees responsible for statistical matters".
This would, I think, raise some practical problems.
7. First, a judgement must be made as to
whether the answer to a Question falls partly or entirely within
the responsibility of the National Statistician. If Questions
continue to be addressed to Ministers, then Ministers make that
judgement, answering Questions to the extent that they are responsible,
and referring the remainder to the National Statistician. If,
on the other hand, Questions were to be tabled to Chairmen of
Committees, any part of the answer which was thought to be outside
the responsibilities of the National Statistician could not be
given in this way, but would have to be sought by a further Question
to the responsible Minister.
8. Second, the role suggested in the consultation
paper would place Chairmen in an equivocal position. Although
a fully independent ONS would not be a Ministerial creature, it
would be very odd to have representatives of a Select Committee
system whose purpose includes the scrutiny of such bodies taking
responsibility in the House for information supplied by the ONS.
Some, perhaps most, Chairmen might be reluctant to be put in such
a position.
9. Third, it is easy to imagine a situation
where the reference of a Question to the National Statistician
for reply might be politically contentious—for example,
if a Member believed that the responsibility lay with Ministers
and that this was tantamount to avoiding an answer. This could
put the Chairman of the relevant Committee in an invidious and
embarrassing position.
10. Overall, the alternative answering route
suggested in the consultation paper would at the least be cumbersome,
but might also have considerable practical disadvantages. It would
seem preferable to keep the present arrangements in place. Using
the convenience of a ministerial PQ to get information from the
statistics office into the public domain would not in itself call
into question the independence of the office; and a reply formula
might be devised which made that clear.
11. The Sub-Committee might wish to consider
whether there should be a means of direct Parliamentary questioning
on broad matters of policy and funding, rather than the operational
matters dealt with above. This exists in the case of the National
Audit Office (through the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission)
and of the Electoral Commission (through the representative of
the Speaker's Committee). However, no such arrangements exist
for the Non-Ministerial Departments listed in paragraph 4.11 of
the consultation paper (the Food Standards Agency, the Charity
Commission and independent regulators such as Ofsted). If a means
of questioning on strategic ONS issues were required, then a Member
able to answer in the House on such matters would presumably need
to be a member of the Board described in paragraphs 4.17ff of
the consultation paper.
Roger Sands
Clerk of the House
3 Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 23rd edition,
page 262. Back
4
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003,
Schedule 2, paragraph 11. Back
| 
