 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Statistics and Registration Service Bill |
Statistics and Registration Service Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 18 January 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]Statistics and Registration Service BillClause 5Executive
members and other
staff
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 15, in
clause 5, page 3, line 13, after
‘Majesty’, insert
‘on the advice of the Prime
Minister’.—[Mr.
Fallon]
1
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking the following amendments: No. 120, in
clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15
and insert—
‘(b) employed to
operate independently of the Board with scrutiny and oversight of the
role provided by the
Board.’.
No.
188, in
clause 5, page 3, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(2A) No
appointment shall be made under subsection (2) until it has been
approved by the Commission established under section (Establishment of
a Commission for Official
Statistics).’.
No.
189, in
clause 5, page 3, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(2A)
Appointments made under subsection (2) shall be subject to review by
the Commission established under section (Establishment of a Commission
for Official Statistics) within one year of their having been
made.
(2B) The Commission shall
produce a report on any review carried out under subsection (2A) and
shall lay it before each House of
Parliament.’.
No.
16, in
clause 5, page 3, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The
National Statistician shall have right of direct access to the Prime
Minister on any matter involving dispute with a government
department.’.
No.
151, in
clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
121, in
clause 8, page 4, line 35, at
end insert—
‘(4) The Board
shall have responsibility to monitor and assess the performance of the
National Statistician against the assigned
responsibilities.’.
No.
100, in
clause 9, page 4, line 37, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
101, in
clause 9, page 5, line 2, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
102, in
clause 9, page 5, line 4, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
103, in
clause 18, page 8, line 15, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
104, in
clause 18, page 8, line 17, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No. 105, in
clause 18, page 8, line 19, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
106, in
clause 18, page 8, line 21, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
107, in
clause 18, page 8, line 23, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
108, in
clause 19, page 8, line 26, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
125, in
clause 19, page 8, line 30, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
126, in
clause 19, page 8, line 36, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
109, in
clause 20, page 9, line 11, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
110, in
clause 21, page 9, line 20, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
111, in
clause 22, page 9, line 23, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
112, in
clause 22, page 9, line 25, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
113, in
clause 22, page 9, line 27, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
114, in
clause 23, page 9, line 34, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
115, in
clause 26, page 10, line 34, after
‘Board’ and insert ‘and the National
Statistician’.
No.
116, in
clause 26, page 10, line 35, after
‘Board’ and insert ‘and the National
Statistician’.
No.
197, in
clause 28, page 12, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(d) ensuring
that, where appropriate, official statistics provide evidence of local
variations and service
needs.’.
No.
97, in
clause 28, page 12, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(5) The
National Statistician shall be the government’s chief advisor on
statistics, including, inter alia, matters relating to the planning,
production and quality of official statistics, and shall provide
professional leadership to all persons within government who are
engaged in statistical production and
release.’.
No.
127, in
clause 28, page 12, line 17, at
end insert—
‘(5) The
National Statistician shall be the government’s principal
advisor on statistics and provide professional leadership to all
persons engaged in statistical production and
publication.’.
No.
80, in
clause 29, page 12, line 19, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert
‘executive office created under the
provisions of subsection (5)
below’.
No. 98,
in
clause 29, page 12, line 22, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
National Statistician
shall—
(a) coordinate,
and promote coordination of, statistical production across government
and the devolved administrations;
and
(b) take steps to ensure
consistency in the production of official statistics across the United
Kingdom.’.
No.
29, in
clause 29, page 12, line 27, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The
National Statistician shall have responsibility for
promoting—
(a) the
co-ordination of statistical planning and production across government
departments; and
(b) the
production of statistics that are as consistent as possible across the
United Kingdom.’.
No. 139, in
clause 29, page 12, line 28, leave
out from ‘Board’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘shall monitor the National
Statistician in the exercise of his functions in relation to official
statistics, inlcuding the duty set out in subsection (2A)
above.’.
No.
128, in
clause 29, page 12, line 28, after
‘may’ insert
‘not’.
No.
129, in
clause 29, page 12, line 29, leave
out
‘not’.
No.
117, in
clause 31, page 13, line 26, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
130, in
clause 36, page 14, line 35, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
132, in
clause 36, page 14, line 40, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
133, in
clause 36, page 15, line 4, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
134, in
clause 36, page 15, line 23, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
135, in
clause 36, page 15, line 25, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
136, in
clause 36, page 15, line 27, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
137, in
clause 36, page 15, line 30, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
No.
138, in
clause 36, page 15, line 31, leave
out ‘Board’ and insert ‘National
Statistician’.
I
also remind hon. Members that, because it is a rather large group of
amendments, if they wish to press any amendment separately, they should
indicate that during their speech.
The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
I
welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Olner. I hope that hon.
Members recognise that I like to be as positive as I can, so I shall
pick up on a positive note and reflect on some of the arguments that
were put to support amendments Nos. 98 and 29. I am grateful for the
acknowledgement and the warm words of the hon. Member for Chipping
Barnet. That is a tribute to the work that has been done to bring all
the devolved Administrations into the new system. I pay tribute to
those in the devolved Administrations who have taken the decision to be
a part of what we are legislating for.
Probably everyone
shares the aims of hon. Members who have tabled amendments in this
group. Everyone will recognise that consistent, UK-wide statistics are
beneficial and desirable. Such consistency allows statistics about
devolved countries to be combined, it allows figures for the UK as a
whole to be produced, and for situations in different Administrations
to be compared.
However, it is important that we
recognise that some divergence is to be expected because of the
different political, legal and administrative situations of the four
nations. Many of the differences existed prior to devolution.
On the wider point of planning
and co-ordination, we have given the board the overall objective of
promoting and safeguarding the quality, good practice and
comprehensiveness of official statistics. It hasthe specific
duty to monitor, and can report publicly on all of the issues to which
I referred, as is set out in
clauses 7 and 8. In so far as the board considers consistency to be good
practice, it can promote it through the code, through its advice and
guidance on standards, or as part of the methodologies for the
production of statistics, a matter covered in clause 9. We envisage
that the board’s statutory objectives of safeguarding
comprehensiveness, and the coherence between different sets of official
statistics—the Bill defines that as an aspect of
quality—will be the key ways in which co-ordination across the
system will be assured.
There are a number of ways in
which the board can seek to deal with work programmes that it judges
are not comprehensive, or lack co-ordination. The board can report its
concerns to the relevant Ministers, make its views public, and report
concerns to Parliament and the devolved legislatures in either its
annual or a special report. Additionally, the board can produce
statistics if it considers that there is a gap in statistical coverage
to be addressed, and no other body will deliver the statistics to meet
that need. However, it would not be helpful—it would be
restrictive—to set out in legislation the specific mechanisms
that the board will use to deliver on those duties. I hope that my
explanation of the options that are available to the board to meet any
such concerns will satisfy the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and her
hon. Friends.
John
Healey:
I was just about to speak to my right hon.
Friend’s amendments, but I am very happy to give way to him, as
always.
Alun
Michael:
The Financial Secretary has set out good reasons
for not constraining the work of the board. Does he agree that the
direction should be towards the quality, independence, and objectivity
of statistics, but also that those statistics should be collected in a
useful way, and inform public discussion? That is not a constraint on
the board; it is a basic requirement.
John
Healey:
I would go further than my right hon. Friend and
say that it is a basic characteristic and purpose of statistics. I am
sure that the board will reflect that in its work.
My hon. Friend’s
amendment No. 197 would require the National Statistician as the
board’s principal adviser to work to ensure that, where
appropriate, official statistics provide evidence of local variations
and service needs. As we discussed in an earlier sitting, I share my
right hon. Friend’s concerns. I understand his argument about
the need for local statistics to aid local and regional policy making.
That is important. He said earlier that he was looking for reassurance
through this amendment, and I hope that what I have to say satisfies
him.
I expect that, in
considering the comprehensiveness and quality of official statistics,
the board and the National Statistician, when acting on the
board’s behalf, will consider their use in local policy making
and use them to help understand local variations and needs. However,
for reasons that we have already
discussed, it would not be helpful to focus in legislation on just some
of these statistical uses, even particularly important ones, given the
ever-increasing and rapidly changing uses to which statistics are put.
As we have discussed, and as the Committee has accepted, we could never
hope to be exhaustive in that area in primary
legislation.
Finally, I
turn to amendment No. 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Chipping
Barnet. I am not certain about her point, having read the amendment and
listened to her remarks. Let me try to be clear and, I hope, helpful
and confirm our intention that the national statistician is to be the
chief executive. The board as an organisation needs a chief executive
who is accountable to the governing body for the effective, efficient
operation of the whole department and who will be the board’s
accounting officer. However, the person need not be involved
operationally in every aspect of the body’s activities to
discharge that responsibility—and the Bill ensures that they are
not. It is important that the Bill establishes that, where there may be
a perception of a conflict of interest, there is adequate separation of
the operational activity. That separation is set out in the Bill, which
establishes that the National Statistician cannot be involved in the
activity of assessment, which will be operationally independent of the
National Statistician’s executive office, where we expect that
statistical production will take
place.
The hon. Lady
queried whether the National Statistician could be responsible, as
chief executive, for part of the statistics board from which he or she
was to maintain the separation. This is one area in which we are not
breaking new ground. It may help the hon. Lady and the Committee for me
to mention that, quite often, a body is authorised by Parliament to
undertake a dual role. One only needs to think of a local
authority—a number of Committee members have a distinguished
track record in local authorities—which is empowered to promote,
for example, development within its boundary and, at the same time,
grant planning permission. When that happens, the local authority must
structure itself to perform both functions as best it can, bearing in
mind its overriding duty to act fairly, impartially and without bias.
In such circumstances, a chief executive of a local authority would
distance himself from planning, but would still be capable of ensuring
the overall efficiency or governance of the
body.
I do not wish to
try the Committee’s patience. I hope that, in my response to a
wide-ranging debate and serious, important amendments, I have set out
the principles on which we are trying to establish the board and
structure its operations in statute, where appropriate. I hope that I
have given some indication, with respect to important matters, of what
our expectation may be in practice. I hope that I have also explained
that, in setting up an independent board with the capacity to draw up a
code independent of Government that the board enforces and reports on,
we do not bind too closely the judgments that the board needs to take.
I hope that I have dealt with some ofthe specific points in
the amendments and given the explanation and reassurance required. I
hope that the
hon. Member for Sevenoaks will not press amendment No. 15 and, that
other hon. Members will not seek to move their amendments when we reach
the relevant place in the Bill. I make it clear to the Committee that I
cannot accept those amendments and if they press them, I will ask my
hon. Friends to vote against them.
Mrs.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con): I am grateful to
the Financial Secretary for his lengthy response to the many amendments
of significance that have been tabled. One of the most technically
challenging parts of the debate is getting to grips with exactly who
does what and who accounts for whom. As we have heard today, there is
much confusion among those who are following the passage of the Bill
about how the structures will work. I hope that this discussion has
provided enlightenment and cleared up some of those confusions. I fear
that some confusion remains, but I certainly hope that we have made
progress. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for his
comments.
I
particularly welcomed his re-emphasis of the importance of access to
the Prime Minister for the National Statistician. That is of key
importance and it would be welcome to have it in the Bill. If not, it
is at least welcome that the Financial Secretary has today confirmed
that the National Statistician will have access and that it is an
important part of the way in which the Government envisage the
framework for Government statistics operating. Referring in the Bill to
access to the Prime Minister would send a strong signal that would
enhance the credibility of the National Statistician. As a number of
hon. Members have made plain today, the political authority, standing
and status of the National Statistician is crucial to ensuring a
successful outcome for this reform. That is why I am sorry that the
Financial Secretary is not disposed to accept the amendments that refer
to the pivotal leadership role that the Opposition hope that the
National Statistician will play.
I am grateful to the Financial
Secretary for his recognition of the importance of co-ordination of the
statistical system. That was particularly well-emphasised by my hon.
Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. There are a number of
concerns that have not yet been answered and perhaps we can return to
those on Report. It is particularly worth highlighting the point made
by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne when she referred to the
evidence given to the Treasury Committee by Dr. Ivan Fellegi about the
functions of the National Statistician. The weakness he saw in the
consultation paper on which he was commenting has, I fear, not yet been
addressed by the Bill. That issue would have been addressed by a number
of the amendments. It is a matter of regret that the Financial
Secretary does not feel able to send a visible signal regarding the
importance of planning, co-ordination and leadership by inserting the
amendments into the Bill.
I would be concerned if we were
to go down the road advocated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
South-West, which would be to roll back on the functions and
responsibilities—
Alun
Michael:
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,
South-West is not with us, I should
point out that he did state more than once that he was not advocating
that particular approach; he was pointing out to the Opposition that
there was a choice between two ways of approaching things. My hon.
Friend is often quite clear in what he says and should not be
misinterpreted.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I
should have said that I would not support the option discussed
following the intervention made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
South-West. He did say that he felt that the additional
responsibilities in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me and
by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne could make the role of
National Statistician so onerous and difficult that it would become
impossible to fulfil. I do not agree for a number of reasons. Many of
those functions are currently carried out by the National Statistician,
and the responsibilities are entirely within the remit of people
holding similar posts in other parts of the world. A useful insight
into international comparisons can be found in the Treasury Committee
report that described the functions in the Canadian chief
statistician’s remit. They are an excellent model and are
entirely within the scope of the Opposition
amendments.
1.15
pm
I return to the
supervisory and scrutiny issues. They are also matters of importance to
which the Committee might be disposed to return on Report. It was a
matter of concern and anxiety that the Minister was so clear that the
board should not have a regulatory function and would not be a
regulator in the sense in which that term is normally understood.
Instead, the board will have what he described as a softer audit-type
function.
That founds
some of my fears about the Bill, a theme to which I shall return when
we discuss the amendments dealing with scope. There is a key difference
between the two Front Benches. The Conservatives feel that the
legislation should allow the board to scrutinise and regulate the
statistical system and believe that it is inadequate to do so at the
moment. That is why we will seek to strengthen the powers available to
the board to enforce the code. I remain concerned that merging the
Statistics Commission with the Office for National Statistics, which is
effectively what will happen, would remove an important
safeguard.
In many
respects, as I have acknowledged on the Floor of the House as well as
this morning, the Bill is a step forward and in the right direction.
The Minister deserves credit for taking those steps, but losing an
independent scrutiny body and merging it with an executive body
represents a step back. He was confident that the board’s
executive function would not prevent it from criticising the ONS and
its decisions. Again, we must consider perception. As I pointed out in
an intervention, the problem does not arise where a criticism is made.
A more difficult situation will be one in which the board decides that
the ONS has got it right. The credibility of the board’s
judgment will be undermined to a degree. It will not be seen as
disinterested, because it will have been ultimately responsible for the
decision in the first place.
I hope that the Committee will
have an opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 151 and 97, as they
raise important issues on which it would be useful to divide. I am
grateful for the Chairman’s patience in listening to my further
thoughts.
Alun
Michael:
I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary
for his closing remarks. The clarity of his important response will be
welcomed by everybody concerned with policy development and delivery
locally and, indeed, very locally. His words will also be welcomed by
those engaged in local partnership work, where cross-cutting issues and
the relationship between different elements of data are crucial,
particularly in such things as local regeneration
work.
I accept entirely
the Financial Secretary’s view that it is good to keep the words
in the Bill as simple as possible. It is also true that trying to
underline something by making the wording specific can, by implication,
make other things less important or exclude them. For that reason, I do
not wish to press my amendment to a Division. With the Financial
Secretary’s word on the record, it will be impossible for the
National Statistician or the board to overlook the need to design the
work with official statistics so that it provides evidence of local
variations and service needs. That will be greatly welcomed
everywhere.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): I welcome you to
the Chair this afternoon, Mr.
Olner.
I would like to
thank the Financial Secretary for his helpful explanation, which has
not only provided clarity and shed light on the issues raised in
Committee, but will have helped the statistical community, particularly
in relation to the appointment of the National Statistician and the
access that the National Statistician may have to the Prime Minister. I
am still disappointed by the lack of acceptance that the leadership
status of the National Statistician may need to change. The Financial
Secretary has said, understandably, that not all the points can be
included in the Bill, as we will have to wait and see how things pan
out when the board is up and running. Until that happens, concerns,
which may need to be raised again on Report, will
remain.
The hon. Member
for South-West Hertfordshire has suggested that a clear mission
statement should be provided, whether as part of the Bill or
separately. A statement of the functions of the board and the chief
executive might go some way to providing greater clarification of how
those roles interact. However, we will not press our
amendments.
Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con):
Comprehensive though the Financial Secretary’s remarks were,
they did not specifically address the points raised by amendments Nos.
188 and 189. No doubt he considers that he addressed those points when
he spoke to amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which relate to the
appointment of non-executive members of the Statistics Commission. I
assume that he has not had a change of heart and that he will not take
this tremendous opportunity to put his name in history with a great
constitutional legacy.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman tempts me,but his
amendments relate to the proposal for a commission, the merits and
demerits of which we fully discussed earlier, when the Committee chose
not to give that proposal its backing.
Mr.
Gauke:
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. I was
hoping that there might be some indication of an alternative route,
whereby Parliament could scrutinise the
appointments.
I would
be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Olner, as to whether it
is possible to move the amendments, given that they relate to a
commission that would be set up under new clause 2. I would do so, if
it were
possible.
The
Chairman:
I have been advised that the hon. Gentleman can
vote on the commission at a later
time.
Mr.
Gauke:
I am grateful, Mr. Olner. If I have the
opportunity to move my amendments at the appropriate time, I will do
so.
Mr.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): I sense that the
Committee wants to come to a decision on this large group of
amendments, about which we have had a wide-ranging debate. Sadly,
Mr. Olner, you missed the description of the accounting and
auditing years ofmy hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. He has
described himself as a “process man”, which I think falls
into the category of too much
information.
This has
been a wide-ranging debate, and it has been most revealing. The
Financial Secretary started by saying that the Bill is part of the
great new settlement and that it will devolve authority previously
exercised by Ministers to the National Statistician and the statistics
board. We fully understand why he has gone for the option of a single
board, but, as we heard earlier, the flaw remains. It is not so much
the distinction between the production of statistics and scrutiny, but
that in our view those are not the sole functions of the new
arrangement.
There is
an S-word that does not appear in the Bill, and it never seems to
escape the lips of the Financial Secretary. That word is
“supervisory”. We do not see that word in the Bill, and
the Financial Secretary is careful in his answers not to describe the
new board as supervisory. He has used the word once in the context of
Parliament. He wants the supervision of the system to rest with
Parliament, which is a noble ambition, although we have no idea how it
will work, because those arrangements are not for the Financial
Secretary to propose.
We have a problem, because when
the Financial Secretary was pressed on the matter, he had to concede
that what he is setting up—he used these words—is not a
regulator. He said that it is something softer than a regulator. I am
not quite sure what that could be, but he said that it would set
standards, make assessments and audit whether statistics had achieved
those standards. At one stage, he described the work as
technical—he said that the questions are technical and that they
should be left to a body that is softer than a regulator. That is not
where the Financial Secretary started. He started by saying that he was
going to devolve authority, in which case the authority that he
exercises now would be devolved to the National Statistician and the
standards board. However, when we come to the detail, we end up hearing
that the standards board is not a regulator, but a body involved in
assessing rather technical questions. If we are not genuinely devolving
authority, then we are not enhancing confidence in official
statistics.
I turn to
the three amendments that stand in my name and to the Financial
Secretary’s answers on them—as you have said,
Mr. Olner, it is for others to determine whether to press
their amendments to Divisions at a later stage. I shall begin with
themost important amendment, which is amendmentNo.
29. I did not attempt to write into the Bill a general duty of
supervision—I could have done so, and itcould be done
later. I confined my amendments to giving the board the duty of
co-ordinating across Whitehall and ensuring consistency between
Departments and between Departments and the devolved
Administration.
I
cannot see how even a softer form of regulator would not find it useful
to have a specific duty to co-ordinate and to ensure consistency. I
shall give the Financial Secretary another opportunity to explain why
those duties should not be added. His initial answer was that the board
will have the power to advocate and promote consistency. He said that
if it does not find consistency, it will have the power to report to
Ministers. I thought that we were trying to get away from that, but he
said that it will report to Ministers or to Parliament. Finally, he
said that if there is no consistency, the board can commission its own
statistics to ensure that they are
consistent.
It is not
enough to promote, to advocate andto report. In my view, the
board must have the power to enforce, which is why I tabled amendment
No. 29 to clause 29. When we reach that clause, I hope that we will
have the opportunity to vote formally on that amendment, as well as on
some of the other amendments in the
group.
1.30
pm
Amendment No. 16
concerns the National Statistician’s right of access to the
Prime Minister of the day. The Financial Secretary gave us some comfort
by assuring us that under the existing framework the National
Statistician has access, but it is not the direct access that my
amendment would require—it is access through the head of the
home civil service. I well remember that this precise point was
explored when the framework was before the Treasury Committee four or
five years ago.
I
remain puzzled as to why the access has to be indirect, because I
thought that the whole point of introducing these new arrangements was
that we were getting away from Whitehall and that the National
Statistician would be an independent officer of state who would no
longer have to report back through the head of the civil service, the
Cabinet Secretary or whoever. I thought that if there was a dispute
with a particularly recalcitrant Department or Secretary of
State—as Lord Moser told the Treasury Sub-Committee last summer
that there was in his time—the National Statistician would have
direct power to go to the Prime Minister. It is worth including the
particular words of my amendment in the Bill.
Finally, I
turn to amendment No. 15, which I moved earlier. I must again thank the
Financial Secretary, because he has confirmed, importantly and
usefully, that this appointment will be made by the Prime Minister. He
then spoiled things in two respects. First, he compared the new
National Statistician to the chief medical officer or the chief
scientific adviser. They are important offices, but they are both
creatures of Government; those people are advisers to the Government. I
had hoped that the whole point of setting up the new post of National
Statistician in statute was that its holder would not simply be an
adviser to or a creature of Government—I hoped that they would
also represent the public interest in
statistics.
John
Healey:
Under the framework that we seek to create with
this Bill, the National Statistician emphatically will not be a
creature of Government. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the record of
this morning’s discussions, when it is published, he will see
that my point was that we are breaking new ground. What we are looking
at is unprecedented, as we are creating a new system, so there are no
models for us to follow either internationally or domestically. The
closest comparator might be the chief medical officer or the chief
scientific adviser, but neither are truly comparable to the National
Statistician. I hope that he will accept that, and if he checks the
record, he will see that that is precisely my
argument.
Mr.
Fallon:
I am happy to accept that, and I am grateful to
the Financial Secretary for clarifying it. The problem is that there is
no exact parallel—I think that this is what he is telling the
Committee—to the way in which he perceives the post of National
Statistician. Yet, my point still holds. The National Statistician is
to be not an officer of Government but, as I hope the Financial
Secretary intends, an officer of the state. That is why it would be
useful, given that he has helpfully conceded that the appointment will
be made by the Prime Minister, to write that into the statute, and I
see no objection to doing so.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee proceeded to a
Division.
Lord
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury(Kevin
Brennan):
On a point of order, Mr. Olner. Are
the Noes 9 or
8?
The
Committee having divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3
]
AYESNOES
Question accordingly
negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
188, in clause 5, page 3, line 15, at end
insert—
‘(2A) No appointment
shall be made under subsection (2) until it has been approved by the
Commission established under section (Establishment of a Commission for
Official Statistics).’.—[Mr.
Gauke.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
4
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
16, in clause 5, page 3,line 19, at end
insert—
‘(3A) The National
Statistician shall have right of direct access to the Prime Minister on
any matter involving dispute with a government
department.’.—[Mr.
Fallon.]
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
Division
No.
5
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Villiers:
As we have had a useful and extensive debate on
matters relating to clause 5, I have just a very short point to raise,
on which I should be grateful for the Financial Secretary’s
thoughts. Subsection (6)
states:
“The
board may only appoint persons under subsection (4) with the approval
of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and terms and
conditions of
employment.”
As my hon.
Friends will confirm, I am always concerned to ensure good value for
money for the taxpayer and sensible and efficient use of
taxpayers’ money, but I wonder in this case whether it is
necessary
for the Minister for the Civil Service to be involved in determining
staff numbers. Obviously, there have to be budgetary constraints, and
those will be set in the way that is set out later in the Bill, but it
seems to me that, within the constraints of the resources allocated to
it, there is an argument for letting the board take the decisions as to
the numbers of staff whom it
employs.
Mr.
Fallon:
It will be useful if we just pause for a moment to
consider clause 5 in a little more detail. Naturally, we have
concentrated on the position of the board and the National
Statistician. As my hon. Friend has said, however, the clause deals
with the position of other staff, and those who currently work for the
ONS are entitled to a little more explanation of their future position.
On Tuesday the Financial Secretary claimed some credit for his work
with the ONS. He
said:
“I have
played an active role, which has had a beneficial impact on the
ONS”.——[Official Report, Statistics and
Registration Service Public Bill Committee, 16 January
2007;c.
57.]
At the very moment
on Tuesday when he was making that claim, the announcement was made
that some 600 jobs were to go from London, to be movedto
Newport. The Public and Commercial Services Union said that it feared
“up to 200 compulsory redundancies”. A PCS spokesman
added that staff were “livid” at the proposal and went on
to say:
“These
plans are unnecessary, ill thought out and will undermine the quality
of the statistics that the government base new initiatives and policies
on.”
So the
Financial Secretary should have the opportunity to provide some
reassurance. I say that as someone who has constituents who work at the
ONS who are now completely unsure whether they will be among the 100 to
remain in London, the 600 who will be moved to Newport, or the 200 who
will be fired as a result of the
proposal.
I have three
specific questions for the Financial Secretary. First, are there going
to be compulsory redundancies as part of the relocation? Secondly, will
the board, from the moment when the Act is passed, be subject to the
same manpower reduction targets that are being applied elsewhere in
Whitehall? Thirdly, what will happen to those who currently commute to
the Pimlico headquarters from constituencies like mine in Kent? Will
they be offered assistance with relocation to Newport, which is some
distance away, and what help will be made available to them? Will they
have the choice as to whether they go or
stay?
Alun
Michael:
Some years ago I attended an engagement and had
to confess to not knowing a lot about the geography of Kent. Clearly,
however, the hon. Gentleman does not know a lot about the opportunities
and the quality of life in the area of Newport and south Cardiff. Does
he not realise the advantages that are being offered to his
constituents?
Mr.
Fallon:
I am ready to be persuaded of the advantages of
relocating to Newport vis-Ã -vis Kent, but I am sure that the
right hon. Gentleman understands that for anybody currently based in
London or the south-east of England, the proposal is
potentially a huge upheaval and a large distance by which to uproot
oneself suddenly, however much we support relocation to the
regions.
Mr.
Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): One of the other ONS offices
is based in my constituency, at Titchfield. That was also at one stage
subject to proposals for relocation to Newport. My own constituents
expressed similar concerns to those being expressed by my hon. Friend
today about the problems of relocation, ONS management, and the diktats
to which it is subject as part of the Treasury. I have great sympathy
with my hon. Friend’s constituents and with the views that they
are
expressing.
This is not simply part of the
Government’s relocation drive. It is the Financial Secretary who
has decided to reclassify ONS staff as being within the employment of
the statistics board. So I hope that when he responds, he will offer
some reassurance as to whether compulsory redundancies are part of his
plan, whether the board will still be subject to overall reductions in
manpower targets, and whether assistance will be made available to
those who will compulsorily have to move to Newport as opposed to those
who choose to do so.
1.45
pm
Mr.
Gauke:
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary some
specific questions about clause 5(6), to which my hon. Friend the
Member for Chipping Barnet referred earlier. It
reads:
“The
Board may only appoint persons under subsection
(4)”—
that
excludes the National Statistician and head of
assessment—
“with
the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and
terms and conditions of
employment.”
As I read
that, theoretically, the Minister for the Civil Service could refuse
the statistics board any employees other than the National Statistician
and the head of assessment. The difficulty is that under clause 3(6),
the executive members of the statistics board are to consist of the
National Statistician and
“two other employees of the
Board”.
There seems to be
a contradiction in the drafting. On the one hand, it states that the
board must have three employees, and on the other that any more than
two requires permission from the Minister for the Civil Service, who
presumably is entitled to refuse it—a pedantic point, I accept,
but none the less there seems to be a failure in the
drafting.
Furthermore,
what sort of information is it envisaged that the board will provide to
the Minister for the Civil Service when appointing employees? Given
that he has powers over the terms and numbers of such appointments, I
would be grateful for reassurance that there is not a clearance
procedure whereby the names of proposed appointees will be provided to
him. That would give the appearance of a veto over the employment of
individuals. I would be
grateful also for greater clarification on how much
flexibility the board will have in determining the pay and conditions
of its employees. Clause 5(7)
reads:
“Service
as an employee of the Board is service in the civil service of the
State.”
What impact will
civil service pay grades have on executive employees?
On the approval process, are
there guidelines for the Minister for the Civil Service when granting
consent to the employment of additional staff? Could he delay granting
that consent for a considerable period? I assume that there are
guidelines and would be grateful for
clarification.
Finally,
on Tuesday, when we debated the residual body, we should perhaps have
drawn attention to clause 5. However, given that the Treasury, not the
Minister for the Civil Service, has residual authority over the
statistics board, what form of Treasury consultation or representation
is envisaged? How will the two interact in deciding these
issues?
John
Healey:
I am glad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
takes her role as shadow Chief Secretary seriously.
I can assure the hon. Member for
South-West Hertfordshire, who is concerned about some of the same
points as the hon. Lady, that provisions in the Bill do not mean that
individual appointments will have to be brought before the Minister for
the Civil Service as a matter of course, principally because that is in
fact the Prime Minister. The provisions in the Bill essentially reflect
the fact that, because the statistics board will be set up as a
non-departmental body, on the basis that we explained previously, we
see the board’s employees as continuing to be civil servants.
That move has been generally welcomed by those employed by the ONS, as
well as by the principal unions that represent staff in the
organisation.
The
principal unions representing staff might also have views on other
matters that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks raised. Before I address
those, however, I should say that, on the procedural points that he and
the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet raised, I intend to write to the
Committee to set out in detail what the broad implications of the
provisions in the Bill are.
Mr.
Gauke:
I am grateful for the Financial Secretary’s
comments. I do not know whether he intended to return to the fact that
clause 3 specifies three employees, whereas clause 5 leaves open the
possibility of a veto for more than two, so perhaps he would address
that before he moves on.
John
Healey:
I was proposing to return to that point in the
letter that I shall send to the
Committee.
The hon.
Member for Sevenoaks picked up on work that is being undertaken in the
ONS. That work is part of what was originally the Lyons review, as he
will know, which set out, in a way that the Government accept, the
general case for seeking to relocate a substantial proportion of
central civil service jobs out into the regions and countries of the
United Kingdom. The options that the National Statistician and the ONS
are considering reaffirm that Newport will in future be the corporate
headquarters, first of the ONS and then of the statistics board. That
is a matter that is as welcome to certain Members of the House as it
might be unwelcome to others.
In general
terms, the Government have accepted the strong arguments put forward in
the Lyons review and we are pursuing that with vigour. In the view of
the National Statistician, there is a good business case for the sort
of moves that she is proposing to staff and seeking to discuss with
them, not least—but not only—because of a clear financial
argument, when one considers that the cost of accommodation in central
London is five times higher than in Newport.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks
put three questions to me. Compulsory redundancies, relocation
assistance or any other provision that would rightly be put in place
for staff who were affected are properly matters that will be
negotiated between the ONS managers and the representative unions that
are recognised within the
organisation.
On the
third point, about manpower targets, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman
would expect that to form part of the consideration that will be given
to the special arrangements and the special funding settlement, which
will be made as a provision for the board. That will not be part of the
normal comprehensive spending review process, but a separate settlement
for five years, with any subsequent increases or changes set out in a
formula. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question. I hope that
he will accept that I cannot give an answer to it, although I can
explain precisely how the matter will be dealt with as we move towards
setting up the statistics board under the terms of the Bill, this House
permitting.
Mr.
Fallon:
I am grateful for that clarification, especially
on the last two points. On the first point about whether there will be
compulsory redundancies, I think that the Minister’s position is
that that is a matter for the management of the ONS and of the new
board. Presumably that means that compulsory redundancies are not ruled
out and that the managers of the new board, as of the ONS, will be
allowed if they need to to apply for compulsory redundancies for staff
who are not prepared to move. Is that the
position?
John
Healey:
The statistics board will be a non-ministerial
Government Department and will have employment responsibilities as
other Departments do. The contracts, the terms and the way in which it
deals with staff will be accordingly consistent.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 19 January 2007 |