Clause
11
Pre-release
access
Mr.
Fallon:
I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 11, page 5, line 17, leave
out ‘may not’ and insert
‘shall’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 22, in
clause 11, page 5, line 19, leave
out ‘appropriate authority’ and insert
‘Board’.
No.
82, in
clause 11, page 5, line 22, leave
out subsection
(3).
No. 83, in
clause 11, page 5, line 31, leave
out ‘, or maximum
period’.
No.
84, in
clause 11, page 5, line 32, after
‘granted’, insert
‘up to a maximum of two hours
before general
release’.
No.
23, in
clause 11, page 5, line 38, leave
out subsection
(6).
No. 43, in
clause 11, page 5, line 38, leave
out subsections (6) and
(7).
No. 24, in
clause 11, page 6, line 6, leave
out ‘appropriate authority’ and insert
‘Board’.
No.
25, in
clause 11, page 6, line 7, leave
out from ‘consult’ to end of line and
insert—
‘(a) the Treasury,
except in a case under the provisions of paragraphs (b) to
(d);
(b) the Scottish Ministers, in relation to official
statistics that are wholly Scottish devolved
statistics;
(c) the Welsh
Ministers, in relation to official statistics that are wholly Welsh
devolved statistics;
(d) the
Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland, in relation
to official statistics that are wholly Northern Ireland devolved
statistics.’.
No.
26, in
clause 16, page 7, line 34, after
‘publish’, insert
‘(1)’.
No.
27, in
clause 16, page 7, line 36, at
end insert
‘;
and
(2) a list of all persons
granted pre-release access under the provisions of section
11.’.
No.
86, in
clause 17, page 8, line 9, leave
out subsection
(4).
Mr.
Fallon:
Under your expert guidance, Sir John, we
come to the issue of pre-release. The thrust of amendment No. 21 and
consequential amendments Nos. 22 to 25 is that, as has been stated so
often, pre-release should be a matter for the board ratherthan
for Ministers. I am not alone—it is almost universal—in
my belief that the provisions on pre-release are the biggest single
mistake in the entire Bill. The amendments give us an opportunity to
put it right and put the independence of statistics beyond all
doubt.
It will be for
the Minister to explain why he believes Ministers should keep control
over the arrangements for pre-release. The Government have adopted an
extraordinary position: in essence, they are saying that Ministers
should decide how Ministers should behave. I do not know whether you
are a cricketer, Sir John, but that is like giving batsmen the ability
to decide whether the leg before wicket rule should apply to them. It
is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.
The practice of pre-release has
grown to a large extent. When the Treasury Committee considered it, we
rapidly came to the conclusion that it was far too extensive and
involved too many people. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would oblige the
board to publish a list of people granted pre-release access. At the
moment, it is necessary to trawl various websites to establish exactly
who is entitled to pre-release access to each statistical series. I
would start the other way around: if pre-release is to exist at all, it
ought to be a privilege. The board should therefore be obliged to
maintain a register of persons entitled to
it.
Who is entitled to
pre-release access? It might interest you, Sir John, to know how
extensive the practice is. To take relatively humdrum statistics such
as the series on weekly deaths in England and Wales,14 named
civil servants get two and a half days’ advance notice of how
many people have died. Three of those 14 are in the Health Protection
Agency. One might think that it is a little late to inform the HPA of
deaths in the previous
week.
A series of
statistics of more obvious economic importance are those on the labour
market. Of course, they were the statistics famously abused by the
Prime Minister in his speech to the TUC annual congress this
year—he leaked them two days before they were due to be released
and then sent the Cabinet Secretary, of all people, to apologise. How
many people would the Committee estimate have pre-release access to the
labour market statistics? There are 18 people in six Departments who get
more than two days’ notice of them and a further 22 in nine
Departments who get pre-release access “through the press
office”. 11.15
am
In other words,
40 named officials have two days’ advance notice of the likely
unemployment figures. One might well ask, “Why?” The list
of those entitled to that information of course includes important
figures such as the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor.
There might be a case for arguing that the Governor should have two
days’ advance notice of the unemployment figures. However, the
last two officials on the list of those 40 people are referred to as
“Treasury official clearing brief” and “Treasury
official preparing brief”. Do 40 people, including Treasury
officials preparing a brief, really need two days’ notice of the
unemployment statistics? I think
not.
Let us turn to
the consumer price index—the key index of inflation on which the
Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has to base its judgment, and
which was the cause of some excitement last week when inflation edged 3
per cent., which was very close to the target range. Some 12 people
have advance access to the consumer price index, “through the
press office”—11 in the Treasury have two days’
notice of the inflation figure and one hapless official in the
Department of Trade and Industry gets one day’s notice. The
Committee might be surprised to learn that a further 12 officials have
access to the CPI, including a Mr. Gareth Jones from the
States of Guernsey policy and research unit and a Ms Hayley Harris from
Customs and Excise who gets the figures in advance only in February.
All 12 officials seem to get differing amounts of
notice.
That is a
mess. It is an abuse, and it has spread far too widely. There is no
justification for 12, 20 or 40 different officials having far more
advance notice than everyone else of what the figures are going to be.
Nobody in Parliament gets that degree of notice, so we need to clean
things up. I have not argued, and neither did the Treasury Committee in
its report, that there is no case whatever for pre-release. There might
well be a case for some very senior officers of the state, such as the
Governor of the Bank of England or the Chancellor, having access to
information as early as it is available—a day or two before
publication. However, 40 people should certainly not have two
days’ advance notice, and certainly not Treasury officials in
charge of
briefing.
When the
Treasury Committee looked at that matter, it concluded that pre-release
was far too extensive and needed to be cut back. Our recommendation was
three hours. It is worth pointing out that the Committeewas
Labour-dominated and included six former Ministers—people who
had experience of pre-release and who saw no case for the extension.
Furthermore, the Minister himself accepted that the practice had got
out of hand. He gave evidence to the Committee on14 June and
said, in answer to question
287:
“First of
all, I would certainly accept that the pre-release arrangements
contribute to the perception of interference in
statistics.”
To be fair to him, he went on to argue
that there had been very few proven cases of abuse, but then
said:
“Nevertheless,
there is a perception
there.”
If there is a
perception that the independence of statistics is threatened by the
extent of the pre-release arrangements, we should take the first
opportunity in the Bill to put the independence of statistics beyond
all doubt. I cannot understand the point of setting up a new
independent board but then saying that only Ministers should continue
to be allowed to regulate the arrangements that apply to themselves,
albeit with the approval of Parliament, and that that is the one matter
with which the board should not deal. That is wrong in practice, as I
think I have demonstrated, and certainly wrong in
principle.
Dr.
Cable:
I wish to speak in support of the amendment. Other
amendments in the group relate to the issue—including those that
stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and
Camborne—particularly amendment No. 82, which would specify a
time period for pre-release, in line with what we believe to be good
international practice. Amendments Nos. 43 and 86 give effect to the
proposal that we should clearly specify a non-political process for the
determination of
pre-release.
I wish to
focus on the time period and on why it is seriously bad practice for
the UK to have long periods of pre-release. There are several reasons
for that, the first of which is that the longer the period of
pre-release, the greater the opportunity for political mischief,
through spinning and interpreting the data. I mean
“political” in the broadest sense—I am not talking
just about Ministers, but about advisers and press officers. That could
also include civil servants, who might not act in a political capacity
but who might feel that a set of statistics puts their Department in a
particularly bad or good light, and will want to emphasise certain
elements, given the opportunity to do so. We have seen many examples of
that happening with social
statistics.
Secondly,
even if the practice that I have described was exaggerated—it is
possible that we exaggerate what goes on—there is none the less
the issue of public perception. We discussed at considerable length on
Second Reading the figures showing poor public perception of Government
statistics. The pre-release process has helped to forge those negative
political
perceptions.
A third
reason is that the longer the figures are out there, the greater the
likelihood that they will be leaked inadvertently, with damaging
consequences. There have been some examples of that; for instance, in
2003 somebody leaked the retail sales statistics. They are a key
market-moving indicator, but they got out in a way that they should not
have.
The
Government’s argument is that there is a case for pre-release,
which we concede in the amendment. We do not take the extreme
fundamentalist view that there should not be pre-release, although some
countries do take that hard line. I understand that the Nordic
countries have no pre-release at all. Norway, Finland and Denmark have
no pre-release, and neither does Austria. However, we concede the
principle thatthere is a justification for pre-release under
certain
circumstances, which are quite clear. There are some
important economic statistics that move markets, whether it be the bond
market or foreign exchange markets. The shift in numbers might be such
that action by Government is required to deal with it. If the
Government have not been given at least some opportunity to take
action, market movement will be considerably influenced by the release.
There is therefore a need for a certain time period, in order to
prepare action. Many developed countries accept that principle, which
is also accepted in the
amendment. However, it
is worth reviewing what most other developed countries actually do,
which is quite different and much less permissive than what occurs in
our country. I shall just go through some of the key examples.
Australia, for example, has a three-hour period, which is a little more
generous than this amendment allows for, but of the same order of
magnitude; I think that the Select Committee suggested a figure of
three hours. Crucially, that three-hour pre-release provision applies
to only a handful of key economic statistics—it does not apply
at all to social data. France has a period of only one hour, which is
again restricted to key economic data, unemployment, trade and
inflation figures. Ireland gives a period of one hour for the most
important economic statistics and two hours for national accounts, with
no pre-release for anything else.
One would have thought that the
United States was at the frontier of good practice because its
statistics affect the world, not just the US. As I understand American
practice, the President has pre-release access of only 30 minutes for
key economic statistics. We have not got around to this topic at all in
the Bill, but the Americans hve not only release and pre-release rules,
but post-release rules. Civil servants are not allowed to comment on
the data for at least an hour after they have been released. The
American practice is very severe, disciplined and restrictive in terms
of both the amount of pre-releases allowed and the statistics that are
pre-released. If we are to adopt good international practice, we should
be aspiring to something much closer to the American model.
Finally, by way of contrast, I
cite Canada because its position is much closer to what the Government
aspire to. The Canadians allow 15 hours for Ministers and18
hours for civil servants. Essentially, they pre-release data at the end
of the afternoon, the day before they are due to be published.
Ministers and civil servants get a night to reflect
on the data and react to it, but crucially again, that is allowed for
only a handful of key economic statistics, and does not apply to social
data.
We can have an
abstract argument about the pros and cons of pre-releasing data, but
the question the Government have to answer is why British practice,
even as modified under the Bill, is so far out of line with that in the
rest of the developed world, and in a way that perpetuates either bad
practice or the public perception of it. This is a key clause in the
Bill and I hope that the Minister is listening to the criticisms that
are coming from those on the Opposition Benches and the profession, and
I hope that he will respond sympathetically to the
amendments.
Mrs.
Villiers:
The Opposition believe that it would
significantly strengthen the proposed reforms if the board were given
the power to decide the rules on
ministerial pre-release access to statistical information prior to
publication. That is why we tabled amendment No. 92, which the
Committee just had the opportunity to vote on, to put pre-release into
the code of practice. That is also why we support amendment No. 21 and
why we will be voting against clause 11 when we get the opportunity to
do so.
If the
Government genuinely wish to devolve power over statistics, as they
claim, and make a genuine step towards “modern economic
governance”, they should not exclude pre-release rules from the
devolution proposed. In theory, under the logic of the scheme expected
in the Bill, one would expect pre-release rules, at least in relation
to national statistics, to be included in the code of practice and thus
to be determined by the new reformed structures that the Bill will set
up.
The
Government’s decision to put pre-release into legislation, by
making a specific exception to the principle that the board decides how
national statistics are dealt with, significantly undermines the
credibility of the reforms they propose. It seems to us that there is
nothing inherent in pre-release rules that makes them qualitatively
different from other rules governing the treatment of statistics. Not
only should the board have the power to decide the rules, but I hope
that it would choose to exercise that power to restrict the current
scope of pre-release access. Like many others who expressed a view
during the consultation process, we believe that the time has come to
tighten the rules on
pre-release.
Pre-release
should be restricted by limiting the range of statistics to which it
applies, reducing the number of people who are granted access and by
shortening of the period of access.
John
Healey: How long does the hon. Lady think that the
pre-release access period should
be?
11.30
am
Mrs.
Villiers:
As a provisional view, I believe that
fundamentally the board should decide. There is a case, however, for
allowing Ministers four hours advance notice of data that are not
market-sensitive. That is a little more than the Treasury Committee
suggested, but it is still a significant tightening of the rules. In
the case of market-sensitive data, and drawing on the conclusions of
the Treasury Committee, I think that there is a case for allowing
Ministers access after the markets close on the day before release at
9.30 the next morning. I stress that those are provisional views. The
board should decide: taking into account all the relevant factors and
bringing its expertise to bear, it should make an impartial decision.
There is a case for pre-release access, but it should be more
restricted than under the current rules. Retaining limited pre-release
access for Ministers could be useful in relation to the points made by
the Minister on Second Reading, in providing for emergency measures
that need to be taken in relation to sensitive statistics and allowing
Ministers to prepare a response to them.
That is my provisional view of
the minimum justifiable duration of pre-release access. I am prepared
to let the board decide, as it is more likely than the Minister or I to
get the answer right. We both havean interest in the
outcome—neither of us is truly
disinterested. The board, on the other hand, will have to consider only
the public interest and is therefore most likely to be impartial and
objective and to be seen as such. The thrust of the reforms presumes
that the board making the decision is more likely to inspire trust in
the integrity of that decision than if it were made by Ministers, as
the Financial Secretary proposes. Let us take the decisions out of the
hands of the politicians. We believe that we can trust the board to get
the decision right. The premise that we can trust the board to make
sensible and objective decisions surely underlies the thrust of the
reforms. I repeat the
appeal that I made to the Minister on Second Reading to publish the
draft secondary legislation that he intends to propose under the
clause. Only then can the Committee have an informed debate about the
consequences of clause 11 and the regime that the Government envisage.
When does the Minister plan to publish the secondary legislation? Will
he propose any changes apart from the reduction of the access period to
40.5 hours to align the pre-release access period for market-sensitive
and non-market-sensitive statistics? That was the change that he
announced on Second Reading. Apart from that change, are the current
rules to be replicated? Will pre-release access apply to the same
number of people? If not, what restrictions does the Minister envisage
imposing? Will pre-release access apply to the same statistics as it
does now? If not, what restrictions does the Minister propose? Will any
distinction be made in the pre-release rules between official and
national statistics? Will the National Statistician or the board have
any discretion to extend early access in particular cases in which they
feel there is a pressing need to do so? Will the procedures for
investigating pre-release access be strengthened, given that the
Statistics Commission has expressed concern that they are
insufficiently robust?
That the time for reform has
come is clearly illustrated by the responses to the consultation, of
which virtually every one expressed dissatisfaction with the present
rules. The Minister’s announcement of a reduction in the access
period for non-market- sensitive data, from five days to 40.5 hours, is
welcome, but it does not go far enough to allay the real concern of the
statistical community and the general public about pre-release access,
about which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have already
spoken.
The
UK’s rules stand out as being out of line with best practice and
International Monetary Fund standards. As we have heard, many countries
do not allow pre-release access at all and in those that do, the
longest period is considerably shorter than it is here. Tim Holt, the
former head of the Government statistical service, makes a compelling
point when he says that the UK
rules
“give pre-release
access to more people, for a longer period and for a much wider range
of statistics than in any other...country”.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Sevenoaks highlighted the lengthy list of people to whom pre-release
access is given. When I sent to Tim Holt a few examples of the people
listed by Departments as having pre-release access, he told me that he
was dismayed by the number of people who have been granted access since
the
Government’s framework for statistics in 2000 explicitly gave
Ministers authority over pre-release. The fact that Ministers get
figures days in advance of the public and their political opponents
fuels the understandable concern that that time will be used to prepare
the ground and spin figures. The Prime Minister’s leak of
unemployment figures to the TUC was a clear and blatant breach of the
rules, which moved the markets. Still worse, the Prime Minister put a
misleading spin on the figures. He said:
“Tomorrow I think we
shall see—for the first time in some months—a fall again
in unemployment which will be very welcome indeed”.
In fact, the International Labour
Organisation measure of unemployment increased that month, although
there was a modest fall in the claimant count. Thatis an
example of a leak that was spun for political reasons.
On Second Reading, the Minister
pointed out that the cases listed by the Statistics Commission in which
figures have been leaked in that blatant manner prior to publication
are limited and sometimes the leak was inadvertent. More prevalent is
the use of pre-release access to give Ministers an advantage in
preparing the ground for bad news. Professor Roger Jowell of City
University highlighted the fact that
“the period during which ministers
have sole access to new statistics is a great deal
longer”
in the UK than
elsewhere. He
concluded:
“This
allows bad news to be discounted in advance and generally encourages
leaks.”
The discounting
of bad news identified by Professor Jowell is the more prevalent
problem. Simon Briscoe, statistics editor of the Financial
Times, told the Treasury Committee:
“there is an awful lot of
softening up that goes on.”
To illustrate that he talked about a
story on the importance of animal testing in medical research that was
placed in the media shortly before the Government were due to publish
statistics on the rising levels of animal testing, so a controversial
statistic was softened up in advance by a story that might reduce the
public’s concern about the statistics.
Liam Halligan, economics editor
of The Telegraph, has also provided evidence that the Government
routinely use their early access to statistics to assist their news
management. He
said:
“I can
tell you from personal experience that pre-release is constantly used
by the government to divert the media from numbers which make for
uncomfortable reading. It allows pre-emptive spin, with government
departments sometimes putting out data designed to contradict evidence
about to be revealed by the industrious, independent boffins at the
ONS.”
We
should remember that even a few cases in which inside information on
the content of upcoming statistical releases is used to massage the
news agenda can significantly undermine confidence in official
statistics. Len Cook said of the problem:
“In my time as National
Statistician, I was never made aware of any statistics that were
falsified, but I believe that the prevalence of practices by Ministers
to influence the context of release for politically sensitive
statistics has led to some believing that even the worst practices
could occur.”
The laxness
of the rules on pre-release significantly contribute to undermining
trust.
Many have called for a
restriction on ministerial access to pre-release, including the
Statistics Commission. Professor David Rhind said on its behalf:
“The
Commission starts from the position that Ministers and departments must
accept the principle that no political capital should be made from
statistics before they are in the public domain and that the
opportunity to do so should be severely
restricted.”
The
official Opposition share many of the commission’s concerns in
this matter. Charles Bean, chief economist at the Bank of England,
acknowledged:
“We do recognise that
narrowing, or even eliminating, existing arrangements for Ministerial
pre-release access might have significant benefits on the
public’s perception of the integrity of the statistical process,
which might outweigh the gains in policy formulation.”
In the
light of the concerns that have been expressed, I appeal to the
Minister to accept that if his reform is to restore trust in
statistics, it should embrace fully the controversial issue of
pre-release. If we can trust the board to make decisions on how other
statistical matters are determined, we can surely trust it to make
decisions on an issue that has such a significant impact on public
trust in official statistics and on Ministers’ ability to spin
them for their own political purposes.
Ms
Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab): I rise to defend the principle
of pre-release access to statistics for Ministers. It is sadly cynical
to claim that the privilege automatically leads to abuse as Opposition
Members have tried to make us believe. It is right, for example, that
the independent Phillis review of Government communications considered
the practice and questioned the 40.5 hours advance notice for
Ministers. That is an arbitrary figure, and although I agree with the
hon. Lady that the time can be changed according to circumstances, to
cut it to four hours would surely prevent Ministers from giving the
statistics any serious treatment— [Laughter.] The Phillis
review did not question the principle.
Mrs.
Villiers:
Ministers in other countries manage with much
shorter periods. Is that not an argument for saying that Ministers
could cope with a four-hour period for non-market-sensitive
statistics?
Ms
Barlow:
Perhaps the hon. Lady will be able to inform me
whether performance in those other countries is effective, because I
would question that.
It is also true that the
Phillis review found no evidence that the right has been
abused.
Mr.
Newmark:
On an earlier point, will the hon. Lady explain
what she means by “treatment” by
Ministers?
Ms
Barlow:
I shall come to that later in my speech.
Regardless of that lack of
evidence, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has implied that an
overzealous Government regularly use statistics for unethical
over-hyping. I think that that is also what the hon. Member for
Braintree is referring to. However, all the evidence shows that abuses
have been extremely rare—I acknowledge that they have
happened—and that if they have happened, they have been minor
and the Government have apologised where necessary.
The general principle of
pre-release access needs to be kept. Ministers are publicly
accountable. We have talked about market-sensitive statistics. Let us
imagine
a time—I hope it is far away—when an official economic
statistic sparks an extreme reaction by the financial markets. We know
that that has happened in the past, albeit not recently. That would
have disastrous consequences for mortgage lenders, pension savers and
shareholders. We simply cannot leave the Government unprepared or leave
them only four hours to prepare and expect Ministers to come up with a
reasonable policy reply. How the statistics are used by the media is a
side issue compared to the need for the Government to have the
information on how to govern effectively.
Mr.
Newmark:
Can the hon. Lady explain what is particular
about the ability or intelligence of her Ministers that means that they
cannot deal with the four-hour parameter when Ministers in most other
countries seem to be able to deal with less time? Is it their
intellectual shortcomings?
11.45
am
Ms
Barlow:
That is a rather cheap point, if I may say so.
What I find difficult to understand is why the hon. Gentleman feels
that giving Ministers sufficient warning to deal with something that
might affect the livelihood of our business leaders is a mistake. To be
honest, the media spin is less important than Minister’s ability
to deal with problems as they arise. In the past, we have had
situations where statistics have suddenly been presented that have had
disastrous effects.
Rob
Marris:
Black
Wednesday.
Ms
Barlow:
My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position,
mentions Black Wednesday, which is exactly what I was referring
to.
Alun
Michael:
Does my hon. Friend not agree that Opposition
Members seem to be ignoring the impact on reality of spin by the media?
I offer her the old saying: a lie runs halfway around the world before
truth has got its boots on.
Ms
Barlow:
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point.
It is important also that Ministers are able to deal with the correct
statistics rather than the hype put out by the
media.
Rob
Marris:
On the point that my hon. Friend is developing
about ministerial reaction in relation to market-sensitive information,
would she agree that of the major industrialised countries the United
Kingdom has been the most economically stable in recent years, as
indicated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development?
Ms
Barlow:
I entirely agree. It is in stark contrast with
earlier years, when Ministers may not have had sufficient time to
rescue the economy from statistics that, for them, were extremely
unfortunate.
We can
argue about the time frame, although to cut it from 40 hours to four
would in fact pre-empt a decision by the board—the board that
the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is so anxious should have the power
to set a limit. Any time frame needs to be
decided with common sense and should be subject to particular
circumstances. For example, crime statistics are different from the
retail prices index, which is different from figures about
recycling.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I stated clearly that the board should decide. I
was asked my opinion of the justifiable pre-release access rules, and I
gave an opinion. It should be the board taking the
decision.
Ms
Barlow:
I agree that the hon. Lady made that point; that
is why I found is so surprising that she came up with a figure on the
spur of the moment.
I
agree with the Government that pre-release access is not dishonourable.
It is a means to govern. It is necessary. I also agree that the exact
time frame should be regulated by secondary legislation rather than by
Opposition Front Benchers.
Mr.
Newmark:
Clause 11 begins with two important provisions.
The first is that
“The Code of Practice
for National Statistics under section 10 may not deal with any matter
relating to the granting of pre-release access to official
statistics.”
The second
is that:
“The
appropriate
authority”—
a
rather vague
phrase—
“may for
the purposes of the Code by order provide for rules and principles
relating to the granting of pre-release access to official
statistics.”
Rob
Marris:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Newmark:
I have hardly started, but I am delighted to give
way.
Rob
Marris:
“Appropriate authority” may be a
vague phrase to the hon. Gentleman, but it is defined in clause
11(6).
Mr.
Newmark:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that instructive
information.
I have a
number of difficulties with the deliberate exclusion of pre-release
from the purview of the board’s code of practice. In many ways,
it is the black hole at the centre of the Bill. We heard much about
“perception” from the hon. Member for Twickenham and my
hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The Financial Secretary told the
Select Committee inquiry that he
“would certainly accept that the
pre-release arrangements contribute to the perception of interference
in statistics.”
He then
said that
“Part
of the drive to legislate now to entrench the independence is to try to
deal with some of the problems that are still there in
perception.”
The problem
is therefore simple. Does the omission of pre-release arrangements from
the remit of the board’s code of practice harm the perception of
independence? I believe that it does. If the Financial Secretary
disagrees, let him give his reasons.
The greater
problem is that pre-release has not simply been forgotten, but has been
deliberately removed from the arrangements that are intended to
guarantee independence. We have ended up with a Bill to entrench
independence that does not entrench a significant perceived failing of
independence. The Bill may actually make the problem worse because it
could reasonably be thought that the Government have something to hide
by dodging the bullet on pre-release. Delegating pre-release to the
Treasury and the devolved Administrations puts it firmly out of sight
and out of mind.
The
Financial Secretary himself drew the Select Committee’s
attention to the fact that pre-release is a widely accepted principle
internationally, but when it comes to international practice there is
little common ground, and the Government have admitted as much. What
has happened to his commitment to the Committee to look at the details
of current practice? The Government’s response to the Select
Committee’s recommendations was uncommunicative, to say the
least, with four promises of ongoing consideration and precious little
else.
I want to probe
further why this specific matter is reserved to the Treasury and the
devolved Administrations when such a decision seems entirely contrary
to the avowed principle of the Bill. Allowing Ministers’
pre-release access to be controlled by ministerial fiat could not give
a more effective shot in the arm to suspicions that there is Government
interference in statistics. The situation is hardly helped by the
requirement of an affirmative resolution procedure.
The perception of independence
will not be boosted by reassuring the public that if Parliament does
not approve of what the Treasury and the devolved Administrations are
up to, we can just throw it out. Parliament has not managed to do that
since 1969, when I was 11 years old. There is not much chance of the
House getting fired up enough about statistics to choose that issue to
break with that past habit.
I want the Government to
clarify their position. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary wound
up the debate with a promise that the debate on
pre-release
“will be held
in the House when details of the regulations are published. They will
then be debated in Committee under the affirmative resolution
procedure.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol.
455, c. 109.]
We may well be
able to debate the regulations made under clause 62 in Committee, but
we can only hope to accept them or reject them. If parliamentary
scrutiny is required, the proper time for a debate on the precise scope
of pre-release would be now, in this Committee, not in a hypothetical
future Committee. It would be preferable if the whole issue were turned
over to the independent board as part of the new code of practice.
Assuming for the
moment that the House will not reject the Treasury’s proposed
code outright, there is still no scope for it to be improved. It is
therefore cold comfort for the Financial Secretary to argue that the
pre-release code has “special status”. Does he believe
that the rest of the code will be weaker than the previous codes
concerning pre-release because they are merely backed but not
prescribed by statute?
I am curious about how the
Government intend to square the circle. Why did they go to the trouble
of exempting pre-release from the code of practice? The
Financial Secretary was clear on Second Reading that the pre-release
arrangements would be vetted and reported on to the House by the board.
He also reassured the House that the board’s general duties
towards coverage, good practice and standards will extend to the
oversight of ministerial compliance with the pre-release code. But if
the board’s oversight of the ministerial pre-release code is so
strong, why not go the whole hog and turn over control of pre-release
arrangements to the board? Conversely, if the argument is
that the board cannot both propose and police a code of practice, there
are implications not just for clause 11 or the previous clause but for
the whole Bill. The double standards that have been set up between the
board’s code of practice and the ministerial code on pre-release
threaten to undermine the perception of independence. The amendments as
proposed will therefore restore a crucial balance to the code of
practice and to the
Bill.
Rob
Marris:
I have some short points to make onthe
amendments proposed by the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for
Twickenham. The thrust of the amendments, as I understand it from the
hon. Member of Sevenoaks, is to do with the time limit on pre-release
access and with the number of people to whom information is
pre-released, yet as far as I can see none of his amendments directly
addresses either of those issues. They simply say, to put a gloss on
them, that the board will decide. At least the hon. Member for
Twickenham sets a two-hour limit—which may be a little
tight—in his amendment No.
84.
I have to say to
my hon. Friend the Minister that I have some sympathy with the
proposition that there should be a short time limit for pre-release
access—much shorter than the 40.5 hours, which is now apparently
to apply to market-sensitive and non-market-sensitive information.
There seems to have been a convergence in that respect. The Government
have shortened what they inherited in 1997 from the previous
Government, but the limit is too long. Where I disagree with the
official Opposition and favour the position advertised in amendment No.
84, proposed by the hon. Member for Twickenham, is on the proposals
that the limit should be decided by the board. I think that that is a
matter for Parliament. Certainly the time limit and possibly the number
of people who have access—although that would be more
difficult—should be framed in primary legislation, not decided
by the board or approved by an affirmative resolution. The time limit
should be a much shorter period than40.5
hours.
I ask my hon.
Friend the Financial Secretary to look again at pre-release. Both he
and, on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary said that it would be
reviewed in 12 months’ time. I hope that following that review
the time limits will be shortened considerably and included in primary
legislation, not left to secondary legislation or, certainly, to the
board, as the amendments would
have.
Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): As previous
speakers have said, we have here one of the most important and
controversial elements of the Bill, although also, in some respects,
the least complex. Broadly, the distinction between the Opposition and
the Government is that we believe that the board should decide the rules
on pre-release, but the Government believe that that should remain in
the hands of Ministers. Given that within pretty much all other
statistical areas and all other areas of the Bill such matters are left
to the statistics board—which is the purpose of the
Bill—the onus is very much on the Government to make the case
that Ministers should retain control in what is, after all, an
exception to the general rule. The case is not unique—we will be
debating the retail prices index, when the Government can again make
their case, although we have a specific argument to make in that
respect. The onus is on the Government to explain why they should
retain control in relation to
pre-release.
Hon.
Members should bear in mind public opinion within the statistical
community. On Second Reading, when the Financial Secretary referred to
the number of respondents in the consultation, I asked how many
supported the Government approach. I did not get a specific answer, but
I think that the Financial Secretary acknowledged that there was
widespread concern about pre-release. Indeed, my hon. Friends the
Members for Sevenoaks and for Braintree referred to the evidence given
to the Treasury Sub-Committee on 14 June by the Financial Secretary
acknowledging the perception of
difficulties.
On
Second Reading on 8 January 2007, the Financial Secretary said of the
consultation that
“many
respondents strongly considered the arrangements for pre-release needed
to be tightened and that arrangements for pre-release as they currently
stand contributed to a lack of public trust in our
statistics.”—[Official Report, 8 January
2007;Vol. 455, c.
30.]
I entirely agree with those
remarks. Given the opinions that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping
Barnet quoted, and the views expressed by many in the statistical
community on the arrangements for pre-release as they will stand
following the passing of the Bill—if it is passed in its current
form—it would seem that the Government’s proposals will
continue to contribute to a lack of public trust in our
statistics.
12
noon
Given that
the onus is on the Government to make their case, I hope we will hear a
number of examples from the Financial Secretary. He implied on Second
Reading that he would provide examples of cases in which the Government
have been able to make use of their pre-release access to statistics in
order, not to spin a story, but to develop policy
announcements—in other words, to be able to respond in a way
that the hon. Member for Hove was referring to earlier and in a way
that will allow the Government to react to events.
The hon. Member for Hove
painted a picture that rather suggested a Government micro-managing the
economy and responding to every single statistic, as perhaps was the
case in former times. I think even the Government would argue that a
successful economy requires a framework rather than a number of
discretionary decisions made from time to time. My argument, and the
argument made by many Members, is that pre-release access is used not
for the purposes of developing policy and being able to produce policy
in time for economic statistics so that the Government are
able to adapt very quickly but instead for presenting the figures in as
favourable a light as possible for the Government. On Second Reading, when pressed
to illustrate the way in which the Government are able to change policy
or make a policy announcement along with an announcement of statistics,
the Economic Secretary gave an example. As is his wont, he referred to
the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England
and specifically to the way in which it would be useful for the
Government to have access to the consumer prices index some time in
advance of publication so that, in the event of the Governor of the
Bank of England being required to write an open letter explaining why
the inflation target had been missed, the Government would be in a
position to make a policy announcement very quickly. Such a letter has
not had to be written to date, but I am not sure whether the Economic
Secretary was quite aware of how topical his example was. None the
less, it was a useful example and highlights one or two issues about
pre-release that are directly relevant to some of the amendments in
front of us today.
While preparing for this Bill,
I looked at this issue and was aware of the 40.5 hours limit on the
pre-release of market-sensitive information. I was interested in some
of the news stories relating to the last meeting of the Monetary Policy
Committee of the Bank of England as it was very obvious that the Bank
of England and the Monetary Policy Committee had access to the CPI
figures not 40.5 hours ahead of their release at 9.30 am on 16 January,
when we learned of the increase in inflation, but some time before
that. For a moment, I got a little excited about this, which is not
something I thought I would ever do. It appeared that the Bank of
England had access prior to what would be required under the usual
rules. My interest was further developed when I noticed the evidence
given by the Governor of the Bank of England to the Treasury Committee
in June of last year when he stated that his committee had 36 hours
pre-release access. At that point I thought, “There is something
quite wrong here,” because the Bank of England clearly had
access before that. However, I am grateful to the good offices of the
House of Commons Library and, in particular, to Mr. Ross
Young, who pursued the matter and made inquiries with the Office for
National Statistics and the Treasury.
What emerged was that there is
an exemption to the usual 40.5 hours rule when the Monetary Policy
Committee meets the week before the inflation figure is due to be
announced. That is entirely sensible: the committee clearly needs
access to all the information, and if evidence is available, it should
be provided with it. One can make a distinction between the Bank of
England and the Treasury, notwithstanding the fact that a Treasury
official is present at all Monetary Policy Committee meetings. However,
there is an argument for pre-release access for the Bank of England in
those circumstances. The case highlights the fact that we can trust the
board. The Bank of England has access in those circumstances because of
an agreement between the then National Statistician, Len Cook, and the
Governor of the Bank England that there were good reasons for
it.
That leads me to the broader
point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. The Bill
gives significant powers to the statistics board. We can argue about
its composition and exactly which roles will be performed by whom, but
there is agreement in the Committee that it is right for the statistics
board to have substantial powers. We trust the board to drawup
methodologies, definitions and so on. Why do Ministers not trust it to
develop sensible, pragmatic rules on pre-release? It is a sensitive
matter and one on which there is concern about ministerial involvement,
and I am yet to be persuaded or hear a sensible case. I look forward to
the Minister addressing those concerns and providing clear-cut examples
of Ministers making use of pre-release statistics in a way that helps
with not just the presentation of policy—that has been the
problem—but its
development.
On what
the limit should be and whether it should be four hours or left to the
board to decide, there is a body of opinion that the current period of
time is far too long. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West
acknowledged that. The inevitable result of letting the board have that
power would be that, in most cases, there would be a substantial
reduction in pre-release because the chances are that the board would
be in tune with the consensus among statisticians that a shorter time
is necessary. I do not know whether it would decide on three, four or
five hours, but it would be likely to reduce
it.
Rob
Marris:
I am opposed to the board-centred approach, and I
draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the example that he gave
on the arrangements between the Office for National Statistics and the
Monetary Policy Committee. I understand his point, but given that the
statistics in question are published regularly, a much simpler way of
working would have been for the Monetary Policy Committee to change the
date of its meeting. Instead Len Cook, who has been prayed in aid of by
both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet,
suggested a longer period. Let us be honest: he did not exactly have a
distinguished career at the ONS. It kept correcting major statistics
when he was at the helm. So the one example that the hon. Gentleman
gives is of a lengthening of the
period.
Mr.
Gauke:
I was about to make a point on that. On Second
Reading, the hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for
Chipping Barnet whether she would support the right of the statistics
board occasionally to lengthen the period for pre-release access. I was
going to make that point because there might be circumstances in which
it is right to do that. He makes a fair point: the MPC could meet on
another day. However, I do not intend to explore that issue
now.
None the less, I
believe that a pragmatic approach could be to put powers in the hands
of the board. For the most part, that would involve a reduction in
pre-release access, but there might be exceptions, such as in matters
involving the Bank of England, to which I referred. In such
circumstances, we should trust the board, assuming that the right
people are in place, to make the right decisions. I hope, therefore, to
support a number of these amendments.
John
Healey:
As several hon. Members have said, this is a
considerable group of amendments dealing with some of the most
substantial issues of concern in the Bill. Our debate has reminded us
of the interest in pre-release, which extends beyond the House. My hon.
Friend the Member for Hove mentioned that the Phillis review looked at
those arrangements, as have a number of other external independent
reviews. However, she rightly pointed out the importance of pre-release
to the Government.
The
hon. Member for Braintree queried the term “appropriate
authority” and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,
South-West pointed him to clause 11(6). I thought that he might have
referred him to the explanatory notes, which the hon. Gentleman might
find helpful as well. However, in a moment, I shall deal with the
reason for the term “appropriate authority”—the
Treasury and devolved Administrations.
My hon. Friend said that he
sympathised with shortening the time scale for pre-release access.
Although we might differ on the detail, we agree that pre-release is
important enough to be dealt with by Parliament. I am encouraged that
the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is getting excited about
statistics and that he admits it to the Committee. If he will forgive
me, I shall deal with his points in the body of my comments.
The hon. Member for Chipping
Barnet made a serious point when she said that no political capital
should be made of statistics prior to release. She is absolutely right
and the new arrangements will help with that: shorter periods of access
for non-market sensitive data, tighter arrangements codified in
secondary legislation and complemented by the release of national
statistics through a central hub and the separation of statistical
figures and commentary from policy or political
commentary.
There is a
clear case for pre-release access to statistics. That was recognised by
the Treasury Committee in its July 2006 report and acknowledged on
Second Reading and again today by the hon. Member for Twickenham. The
principle is accepted and established internationally with many
countries, including Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Japan and the USA
providing pre-release access to some statistics to Ministers and policy
officials at least a day before publication. The hon. Member for
Twickenham mentioned the United States and my hon. Friend the Member
for Hove asked how tight the systems are elsewhere in practice compared
with the understanding of how they operate in
theory.
12.15
pm
In particular,
it is worth dwelling on the question of the United States and the
assertion that pre-release access by the US President is restricted to
30 minutes. That assertion seems to be based on evidence given to the
Treasury Committee during its inquiry. I have to say that the Treasury
Committee was misinformed. Witnesses asserted that the President gets
pre-release access that is restricted to 30 minutes, but they misread
the US official guidelines. Let me quote from the Office of Management
and Budget’s statistical policy directive No. 3, published in
1985. It clearly states:
“The agency will provide
prerelease information to the President, through the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers, as soon as it is
available.”
It then
states:
“The
agency may grant others prerelease access only under the following
conditions”
and it then
lists four conditions,
including
“Any
prerelease of information under an embargo shall not precede the
official release time by more than 30
minutes.”
That applies
not to the President through the Council of Economic Advisors, but to
“others”.
Dr.
Cable:
I thank the Minister for that correction, but as we
are dealing here not with political debating points but with statements
of fact, could the Treasury produce an explanatory note on this point,
because what he has said directly contradicts what the Royal
Statistical Society said in briefing us? I am referring to its very
helpful little note on international practice on pre-release access to
national statistics. That certainly gave us the impression that, as a
matter of fact, the United States rules are much more restrictive than
the Minister has stated. As it is important that we are all starting
from the same correct basis of fact, could he produce a note explaining
why the Royal Statistical Society is
wrong?
John
Healey:
I am happy to let the Committee have such a note.
It is important that we deal with matters of fact, and that when we
cite figures in our debates we get them right. I will include reference
to the formal returns that the US makes to the International Monetary
Fund on data dissemination and standards, because they confirm that,
for data on national accounts, employment, unemployment, wages and
earnings, consumer prices and producer prices, the President receives a
copy of the actual data release the evening prior to release. I am sure
that the mistake is an honest one and that the Royal Statistical
Society would want to recheck its information sources and correct any
error in the figures that it has been using and has released to the
House, so I will certainly, if it is of benefit to the Committee, as
the hon. Member for Twickenham suggests, prepare a factual note on the
issue.
Alun
Michael:
This is an interesting exchange, and the Minister
is absolutely right to suggest that it is important for us to be sure
of facts, but does that not make the point that not all scrutiny of
figures before they are released is about spin? Much of it may be about
checking the context and things like that, which are potentially very
illuminating to the reader and the user of
statistics.
John
Healey:
My right hon. Friend is, as he has been
consistently in our discussions, spot-on. He makes a point in support
of the general principle of pre-release access, particularly for the
Government, although other bodies—the Statistics Commission, for
instance—have made submissions to the Treasury Committee arguing
that pre-release access should be granted also to the media and to
those on the Opposition Front Bench. In fact, the Treasury Committee
recommended that, and although none of
the amendments directly proposes it—to be clear, I am dealing
with the general point because it is widely made—amendments Nos.
21 and 22 and amendment No. 92, which we discussed in the previous
group, would allow it. If the concern about pre-release access is for
well
ordered—
Mrs.
Villiers:
Amendment No. 92 would just give the board power
to set the rules. It does not say that the board must allow access by
Opposition spokesmen or by the media. I do not understand the point the
Minister is
making.
John
Healey:
I am making the point that if the hon. Lady placed
the responsibility on the board, as under amendment No. 92 and the
proposals in amendments Nos. 21 and 22, such an arrangement could be
put in place. I am not saying that the board must put it in place; that
is not the tenor of the amendments. However, pre-release statistics are
an important issue that has been widely discussed and two of the
amendments that we are considering in this group would allow that to
take place if they were passed.
On pre-release, if the concern
is for the well-ordered release of statistical information into the
public realm, to distinguish more clearly between statistical
information and policy comment, and to reduce the risk of disclosing
new figures before the officially planned and appointed time, frankly
there is no better way of achieving exactly the opposite than to allow
the press and Opposition pre-release access—other than perhaps
the requirement to pre-release by uploading to YouTube or
MySpace.
Mr.
Gauke:
The Financial Secretary is making a case against
giving the Opposition and the media pre-release access, but why does he
think the board would not be persuaded to give pre-release
access?
John
Healey:
The board may or may not be persuaded. There are,
as I have said, a wide range of voices including the Treasury Select
Committee and the Statistics Commission, which, if they are consistent,
would urge the board to do just that. I am arguing why in principle and
in practice pre-release is a sufficiently bad idea to warrant our
ensuring that the framing of the legislation does not accommodate it.
However, it is an interesting question and I would be interested to
know whether the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet agrees with the
Treasury Select Committee and the Statistics Commission that
pre-release access to statistics should be available to the official
Opposition and/or to the
press.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I am open-minded and open to be persuaded on
that if the board want to go down that route. The thrust of what this
reform should eventually lead to is restricting pre-release access.
That makes me sceptical of the idea of access being extended to
Opposition spokesmen. I am not persuaded of the arguments for such an
extension at the moment although I remain open-minded to persuasion on
it.
John
Healey:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that
clarification. She has been very clear and is right to be sceptical. It
is interesting that she takes a position that may not be consistent
with the views of some of her colleagues on the Treasury Select
Committee or on other wider bodies.
I pointed out some of the
perverse practical effects that such a provision may lead to, but
perhaps we should leave those aside and consider the principal case for
such arrangements. Again, I struggle with that. The principle of
restricted pre-release access to named officials and Ministers is well
established in this country and others. That principle is widely
accepted by us and by those on the Opposition Front Benches, which I
welcome. The principal case for pre-release arrangements is surely
based on the fact that it is the Government and not the Opposition or
the media who are responsible for policy and Ministers who are
accountable for it.
Pre-release access allows the
Government to account for the impact and implications of policy when
important new statistics are released—as the public have a right
to expect and as the British media have come to demand. That also
provides a fundamental safeguard and enables the Government to consider
and plan contingency measures that may be needed alongside a
statistical release to guard against a disproportionate or costly
market or public reaction. That is an important point and is
particularly true for market-sensitive statistics. Governments are
ultimately responsible for maintaining economic and financial stability
and pre-release access to data may be necessary to meet that
responsibility.
The
hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire urged me to set out specific
examples where a facility for pre-release statistics has been used. The
importance is more as a safeguard against circumstances in which they
may be needed, not because it is regularly required and used. On Second
Reading, both the Economic Secretary and I gave the example of the open
letter system, under which the Governor of the Bank of England is
required to write to the Chancellor should the inflation target not be
met. Pre-release access to inflation data enables the Bank to write the
letter and the Government to respond at the point at which the
inflation data are published. The publication of the Governor’s
letter and the Government’s response would aim to reduce market
uncertainty and any consequent market disruption, but that would not be
possible were sufficient pre-release access removed.
Pre-release is also required to
enable Ministers to respond immediately when non-market-sensitive
statistics are sometimes released. For example, if a survey showed that
drug use among young people had risen dramatically, my ministerial
colleagues in the Department of Health would rightly be expected to
explain, accurately and promptly, to Parliament andto the
public what steps the Government were taking to deal with the
issue.
Although there
is rightly some debate and differences of view among us over the
precise pre-release practice that might be appropriate, I hope that we
can achieve some clarity and consensus in the Committee on the
principle of Ministers and officials having such
access.
Dr.
Cable:
Does the Minister agree that although there is a
wide consensus, across parties here and across countries, about
pre-release for market-sensitive information, there is no such
consensus anywhere outside the UK that that principle should also apply
to non-market sensitive social data? Does he agree that, unless the
Royal Statistical Society has again shown itself to be not infallible,
every other country specifically precludes the release of social data
in the way that he has
described?
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman has wide international
experience in such matters and he is right: there is no consensus or
consistency among the systems that different countries have for
compiling or releasing data, or for putting in place pre-release
arrangements for their statistics. The arrangements, including on
pre-release, tend to be fashioned to reflect the individual
country’s needs and circumstances. In Britain, the public
expect, the media demand and Parliament requires Ministers to be able
to account fully for their policies and their implementation. The
statistics that are released in public show significant features that
require
explanation.
Rob
Marris:
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for
Sevenoaks made a slight joke about the Health Protection
Agency—I think it was two and half days before we had the
statistics on that. The hon. Member for Twickenham has also talked
about social statistics. However, if, for example, people involved in
health protection found out that in the past week 15,000 people had
died from avian flu, the Government would wish to move swiftly on that.
That is a social statistic. If it were simply released and there had
been no preparation whatever by the Government, there could be mass
panic.
John
Healey:
Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has grasped
the essential point a little more rapidly than some Opposition Members.
However, none of the amendments in the group would abolish pre-release
entirely. I welcome that degree of consensus, which has also been
apparent in this
debate.
The amendments
in the group seek to place the pre-release arrangements with the board,
for it to determine as part of the code of practice. Under such a
system, the board could do away with pre-release arrangements
altogether. I disagree with that approach. Given the importance of
pre-release, the Bill has been drafted to ensure that the pre-release
arrangements will be tightened and given a special status within the
new system. It is important that the Committee should be clear about
the elements of the new arrangements, which I am happy to spell
out.
12.30
pm
Mr.
Newmark:
I remain confused. It was in fact the hon. Member
for Wolverhampton, South-West who helped to guide me to this point on
clause 6. Given the Financial Secretary’s earlier admission that
there is a perception of interference in statistics, I still do not
understand why our proposal in the amendment that the board should
decide the parameters—the rules that guide—would not give
greater public confidence than
what the Government propose, which is that the
Treasury will ultimately make the rules that guide pre-release. I do
not understand why the Minister’s proposal is stronger than what
our amendments
propose.
John
Healey:
My argument is, first, given the importance of
pre-release, it is appropriate that Parliament, not the board,
scrutinises and finally approves the rules and procedures that relate
to pre-release access. Secondly, the process should have special
status, which it is given by the Bill, requiring such scrutiny and
approval of Parliament, and the devolved Administrations, where
appropriate. Thirdly, the process should reflect the proper devolved
settlement so that the devolved Administrations have responsibility for
the fully devolved statistics. Fourthly and finally, there will also be
an important role for the independent board. It will assess and monitor
compliance with the rules set out in the secondary legislation,
approved by Parliament, as part of its assessment of general compliance
with the terms of the code. That is the approach that we believe to be
correct, which is reflected in the
Bill.
I have been
clear that there is a case for tightening the system, and the hon.
Member for Sevenoaks mentioned this when moving amendment No. 21. I
said so in oral evidence to the Treasury Committee, in response to the
consultation and on Second Reading. I also said on Second Reading that,
after taking into account concerns about the extent of pre-release and
the perceptions of potential abuse of the system, the Government had
decided to tighten current pre-release arrangements by aligning the
pre-release access for non-market-sensitive national statistics with
that for market-sensitive statistics, so that pre-release for all
national statistics will be set at 40.5 hours. In other words, a time
of 5 pm would be set—after the markets have closed—two
days before a 9.30 am release.
We also announced that the
Government would provide in secondary legislation guidance to
Departments that access should be limited to those individuals who
really required the data. Following our debate on Second Reading, I
have written to the Committee, as has been referred to, setting out my
expectations of the types of issue that the principles in the guidance
will deal with.
I hope
that I have answered some of the questions that hon. Members asked
about. I have ensured that the process will be subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure, and that Parliament will have a
further scrutiny and approval role in the arrangements. Suffice it to
say that I am confident that the new arrangements will provide greater
clarity, certainty, transparency and enforceability than the current
ones and they will help to reduce perceptions of ministerial
interference in statistical release.
As I explained on Second
Reading, the Bill establishes a general statistical system that can be
developed in light of experience—a point to which my hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred—and we shall
review the operation of the new pre-release system 12 months after it
starts.
Amendment No.
21 is similar to amendment No. 92, and was tabled by the hon. Member
for Sevenoaks. It would require the code of practice to deal with any
matter relating to pre-release access to official statistics. Clause
11(3) already ensures that the code will apply in relation to any
official statistics as if it included the rules and principles
established by order under subsection (2). That reflects the fact that,
given the importance of pre-release, Parliament and not the board
should ultimately approve the rules and procedures relating to
pre-release access to statistics in the final form prior to
publication. The code will be backed by statute but not set out in
statute, so pre-release access has been given special status under the
system. That means that Parliament will be required to scrutinise and
approve it through an affirmative resolution under clause 62 with
appropriate arrangements in the devolved Administrations. Amendment No. 22, tabled by the
hon. Member for Sevenoaks, would allow the board to determine rules and
procedures for pre-release via such an order. Although there are some
examples of non-ministerial offices or bodies with the powers to make
secondary legislation—including the Registrar General, who is
the subject of part 2 of the Bill—that is a relatively unusual
provision, as the hon. Gentleman will concede. I must make it clear to
the Committee that there is no legal or technical reason why an
independent body could not be given the power to bring secondary
legislation, but it is unusual for the simple reason that when such
instruments are subject to a parliamentary procedure, as they would be
under clause 62, no member of that body can participate in the
discussion or any vote on the substance.
On the rare occasions that a
non-ministerial body has powers to make subordinate legislation, a
Minister is required to speak on behalf of that body in the House.
Clearly, that would result in the slightly bizarre situation that a
Minister who had no involvement in the making of the order or in the
policy behind it would be expected to lead a parliamentary discussion
of the order. I do not see that that is a sensible arrangement for the
future.
Amendments
Nos. 83 and 84 when read together are designed, as the hon. Member for
Twickenham made clear, to limit the length of pre-release access that
could be provided to the Government or the devolved Administrations to
two hours before general release. I think that the hon. Gentleman might
accept that two hours is simply not sufficient for consideration or to
allow the sorts of measures that might be required.
Amendment No. 43, tabled by the
hon. Member for Twickenham, also essentially supports the contention
that it should be the board rather than Ministers who set the
pre-release arrangements. I hope that I have already set out why
Ministers in the devolved Administrations rather than the board should
set the arrangements and why Parliament should be allowed to scrutinise
those arrangements through the order-making process. I do not accept
his argument. I cannot accept the amendments and, if they are pressed
to a vote, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 were
tabled by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. The protocol on release
practices establishes the requirement that Departments publish lists of
who is entitled to have privileged early access and for how long for
each statistical release.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman read from those lists earlier in the debate.
I expect that requirement to continue into the new system. As my letter
to the Committee last week made clear, I expect the secondary
legislation to set out the rules and principles for deciding the number
of officials in each Department who receive pre-release access with a
view to tightening and making more consistent the arrangements across
Government, including for the reporting and public confirmation of such
arrangements. I hope
that on that basis hon. Members will be prepared to accept clause 11
and will not vote against its standing part of the Bill. I hope that
they will reflect and not press their amendments to a vote, but if they
do I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to
resist.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I appreciate this opportunity to make a brief
intervention, Sir John. There are one or two questions to which I have
not received answers from the Minister, although I may have missed
them. It would be useful to know when he will publish the draft
secondary legislation. Will it be in time for us to consider it before
the next stage in the parliamentary
process?
The Minister
confirmed that the rules should be tightened and he gave us one example
in relation to the changes to the five-day rule. Are there any other
ways in which the periods for pre-release access will be tightened in
the draft secondary legislation? He said that he would expect a
reduction in the number of people who have pre-release access to
statistics. Is he prepared to give any further detail about how that
restriction will
operate?
The hon.
Gentleman did not address the issue of whether there are at present
statistics to which pre-release access is granted that should be
knocked off the pre-release list altogether. Can the Committee conclude
that the draft secondary legislation will continue pre-release access
for all the statistics to which it currently applies? Are the
Government mindful of the concerns expressed by the Opposition about
the extent of the different statistical series that are covered?
The matter was
referred to by Dr. Ivan Fellegi in his evidence to the Treasury
Committee as something that concerned him. He said that in Canada,
where he is the chief statistician, pre-release access applied only to
those statistical series where there was a strong and powerful reason
for pre-release. Are the Government still contemplating tightening the
rules in that respect?
I appreciate the
Minister’s lengthy clarification of the position, but I would
welcome the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 21. I also want to
vote against clause 11 stand part to reflect our concerns, fully
expressed in the debate, that the board should determine the
pre-release access rules. Clause 11 would significantly undermine the
strength of the proposed
reforms.
Dr.
Cable:
The Minister has earned the respect of the
Committee by giving good answers to most of the questions on the
clauses, even when we disagreed with him. However, on this clause he is
clutching at straws. There are two basic issues. We are no longer
debating
the principle of pre-release in respect of
market-sensitive data, but we are still debating the issue of principle
in relation to the release of social data.
One example that was plucked
out of the air by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West related
to avian flu, which the Minister seized upon like a desert traveller
grasping at a bottle of water. The more I thought about that example,
the more bizarre it seemed that we would discover an epidemic of avian
flu as a result of trawling through annual statistics on animal
husbandry—
Rob
Marris:
Weekly statistics.
Dr.
Cable:
Well, whatever they are, the point is that even if
such national emergencies came to light as result of that statistical
work, they could easily be allowed for. Indeed, several OECD countries
such as New Zealand allow for special cases when the Government can
have pre-release access in order to deal with those problems. That is
subject to the proviso that access is announced when the statistics are
released and that the National Statistician gives a certificate of
approval that it is the correct procedure. If that is the way the
Government want to go, then we could table an amendment at a later
stage to deal with that
contingency.
Alun
Michael:
Given the likelihood that thousands of deaths
would be noticed, perhaps the example given by my hon. Friend the
Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was over-dramatic. However,
agricultural statistics might show an impact, and I expect that the
hon. Gentleman can think of several situations in which the rapid
spread of disease has had serious consequences for business. Does he
accept that there are issues in relation to a variety of statistics
other than basic economic statistics which need to be
handled?
12.45
pm
Dr.
Cable:
The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly
reasonable point. Market-sensitive data do not have to be core economic
data. However, requests for the pre-release of data could be made in
individual cases and it would be for the professionals to judge the
reasonableness of such requests. We are talking about statistics in
general, of which there are thousands. Only a handful of them could
possibly satisfy those
criteria.
Even if
there is a good case for pre-release access not only of
market-sensitive data but more generally, why do the Government believe
that it is uniquely necessary to have such long periods in the UK? I do
not understand what the arguments are. British officials are recruited
from the top echelons of higher education, so we must assume that they
are bright people who can think on their feet and react quickly, so it
can have nothing to do with that. What is it then about British
institutions that requires Britain to be particularly slow in that
respect? No arguments for that have been given. What is it about the
relationship between Ministers, officials and others that requires us
to have an exceptionally long period in which to digest the
statistics?
Another
theory was put forward by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth—that it is because of the media. The argument is that
the British
media might conceivably be so mendacious and misleading that we have to
have some special protection. I do not know who he was thinking of when
he said that. Perhaps it was Rupert Murdoch, but he is active in
Australia and other countries, and they seem to be able to cope with
fairly robust and demanding time periods for the release of statistics.
The Government are putting forward exceedingly weak arguments, in
contrast with their position on other matters. I hope that they will
pay us the compliment of advancing something a little more
solid.
Mr.
Fallon:
I shall be brief, as I sense that the Committee
wants to decide on the amendments and the clause.
I shall deal first with
amendments Nos. 26 and 27. I think that the Minister was trying to give
me some reassurance that the lists will not be part of the new
codification. All that I have to say to him on that issue is that the
lists are not in good order—I gave the Committee some
examples—but are mixed up. Some officials are named and some are
listed by title. There is the issue of having the two separate lists
for each set of statistics and the curious arrangement in which some
officials are given access through the press office.
The lists are also frequently
out of date. If the Minister visits the website and looks at certain
statistics, he will see that some of his Treasury officials are listed
who have since moved on to other Departments, as are other people who
have retired. The lists are not kept in particularly good order. I
shall certainly welcome the new codification if it will help us to
improve that
aspect.
We have had an
important debate on amendment No. 21. I am encouraged by the support
for it among Opposition Members, and even by some of the Labour
Members’ speeches. One can always tell that the Government are
on particularly flimsy ground when a Labour Member suddenly decides to
break his or her silence and contribute to the debate for the first
time with a supportive argument. That is what the hon. Member for Hove
attempted to do, but unfortunately, her supportive argument almost gave
the game away. She said that the purpose of pre-release—I wrote
her words down—is to allow Ministers “to give statistics
treatment”. It is precisely the purpose of amendment No. 21 to
get away from Ministers giving statistics treatment. Although she said
that the Phillis review had not found many examples of abuse, the
specific abuse that happened in the summer, when the Prime Minister
leaked unemployment figures, came after that review. If the hon. Lady
thinks that that was not an abuse, she must explain why the Cabinet
Secretary was sent out apologise for it.
Ms
Barlow:
The hon. Gentleman correctly quotes me, but
neglects to continue with the rest of my argument. It was that the
treatment was required to deal in a governmental way with the problems
that arose. As I stated clearly later in my speech, the media are a
minor issue to the Government and to the public compared to the
disasters in which statistics are involved and correct guidance is not
given by Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton,
South-West mentioned in respect of Black
Wednesday.
Mr.
Fallon:
The hon. Lady makes her argument even more
supportive—it almost falls into the category of a job
application. She mentioned correct guidance and treatment; we will
reflect on that. I shall read her speech.
The hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, South-West made an interesting suggestion. He was in
favour of tightening some of the pre-release arrangements, but he
thought that it should be a matter entirely for Parliament rather than
the board or Ministers. That is an interesting point. Under the
Minister’s proposals, it would be a matter for Parliament, but I
think the hon. Gentleman wanted to do it through primary legislation. I
ask him to reflect on the inflexibility that might be introduced, as we
might have continually to amend such
legislation.
My hon.
Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire made the important point
that if we accept what the Minister proposes, we will be trusting the
new board to a lesser extent than the ONS in the arrangements that it
has already set in place with the Governor of the Bank of England and
so on. It is extraordinary that we should set up a new independent
board, but say that it is not to be as trusted as the old
ONS.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Chipping Barnet suggested limiting access to four hours,
but she was pressed as to why. I believe that everyone ought to be able
to make their case. That is why I want the independent board to make
the decision, and why the amendments specify that the board must
consult. It should consult the devolved Administrations, and it must
consult the Treasury. I would expect the Opposition parties to express
their views on the appropriate time limits. I would expect the board to
study practice in other developed economies, which seem able to operate
such arrangements in a much more rational and scientific way. Indeed,
evidence was taken from some of those countries. We might argue about
whether it should be 30 minutes or whatever, but the plain fact is that
those countries do not have the extent of pre-release that we do. It is
for the Minister to try to justify
that.
I think that the
Minister understands that there is a problem. If he did not, he would
not already be suggesting, as he has done this morning, even before he
has anything specific to put to Parliament, that there should be
shorter periods of access—I wrote that down—and that the
arrangements should be tightened generally and codified. He has already
proposed that some of the time limits should be changed. The problem,
however, is that if he is saying that the arrangements can be
determined only by Ministers, it is all the more important that the
board and not Ministers should have the final say on what is proposed
to Parliament.
I do
not accept the Minister’s argument or, indeed, the logic of the
position of hon. Member for Hove. If a set of statistics suddenly
appears saying that drug use has increased among young people, I do not
accept that Ministers should have to respond at that very instant. How
can they be in the privileged position of being able immediately to
say, “Yup, the problem has increased and here is what we are
doing about it”? That does not happen elsewhere with social
statistics, and there is no reason for it to happen
here.
John
Healey:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
In effect,
what the Minister is saying is that Ministers should be allowed to
continue their practice of issuing statistics with simultaneous spin
saying exactly how they are going to deal with a problem. I give way to
the Minister. It appears that he is not now going to
intervene.
If the
problem is genuine, so is the solution. As my hon. Friend the Member
for Braintree said, this is a black hole in the Bill, a fatal flaw. If
we accept, as the Minister has repeatedly accepted, that there is a
problem with the perception of the independence of statistics, and if
he is setting out, as he said he was in the Queen’s Speech, to
enhance confidence in official statistics, it is nonsense to suggest
that the new, independent board cannot be trusted to make such
arrangements in the public interest. We want—he wants—the
board to be independent. It should be independent in this
matter.
John
Healey:
I sense that the Committee wants to move on, so I
will be brief. We have had a full discussion on the relative merits and
the principled basis on which Ministers should propose but Parliament
should decide on and finally approve the pre-release arrangements, as
opposed to leaving that entirely to the statistics board. Members of
the Committee will make up their minds on
that.
As to the second
major point that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks raised, he is right that
the current lists of statistics are not in good order. The new
codification will make them clearer and more consistent, and I am glad
that he welcomes that.
I say to the hon. Member for
Twickenham that we are setting up in the legislation a framework for a
new system that can evolve and that needs to evolve in the light of
experience. The Government will specifically review the pre-release
arrangements 12 months after they
start.
I have set out
in my 19 January letter to the Committee our approach on the questions
raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. That letter is also
clear on when I should be able to report
further:
“These
are important issues requiring careful consideration. I will report to
the House as soon as further progress has been
made.”
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
10.
Division
No.
10
]
Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta
Question accordingly
negatived.
The
Chairman:
Dr. Cable, do you wish to move an
amendment?
Dr.
Cable:
Yes, I wish to move amendment No.
84.
The
Chairman:
The question is that the amendment be made. All
those in favour say aye, and to the contrary no. I think the noes have
it.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I do not propose to dwell on the
clause—
It
being One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the
Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at half-past Four
o’clock.
| 
