 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 CommitteeTuesday 23 January 2007[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]Statistics and Registration Service Bill4.30
pm
Mr.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Olner. During your absence this morning, in our debate
on clause 11, the Financial Secretary referred at length to a letter
that he had distributed to members of the Committee. I was puzzled by
that as I did not recall seeing it, but I did not raise it at the time
because I assumed that I was perhaps the only Member who had not had
it. I then discovered a copy of the letter in my second post at
lunchtime.
Clause 11Pre-release
access
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Question
again
proposed.
Mrs.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con): I did not
receive the letter either, but I was able to obtain a copy during the
interval between the Committee’s
sittings.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I want briefly to flag up the issue of devolved
statistics, which the Minister could deal with either now or under
clause 18. There is a reference to devolved statistics in clause 11(6),
and it would be useful to have the Minister’s clarification as
to what it means. I do not think that that concept is defined in the
Bill, but he may be able to correct me.
As I shall explore in our
debates on clause 18, the concept of devolved statistics raises certain
concerns about the fragmentation of statistics across the UK. There is
consensus on both sides of the House that we want to avoid the
fragmentation of statistics and to grapple with and reduce the related
problems that have arisen. Subsection (6) seems to insert the concept
of devolved statistics, which could cause a problem and exacerbate the
fragmentation difficulty that the Bill is partly designed to deal with.
I reiterate that I am happy to deal with that point in our debates on
clause 18.
I reserved
my next point for this part of the debate because it was not really
covered by the amendments. Subsection (8) refers to the rules on
pre-release access relating to
“statistics in their final form
prior to publication.”
Leaving
aside for a moment all the discussions that we had this morning about
who should decide what the rules are, it seems to me that a key problem
with pre-release is the use of information prior to the finalisation of
figures circulating around Departments—possibly to be leaked or
used to soften up the news agenda in the way that we
discussed.
The drafting
in subsection (8) seems to suggest that there will be no regulation of
the raw data and statistics and their use until the last i has been
dotted and the last t has been crossed. Does the Minister expect that
the new rules will provide guidance as to how data should be dealt
with—who may see it, who may use it and what treatment it may
receive—prior to the finalisation of its release for
circulation? If there is to be complete freedom to use and circulate
data before they reach their final form, that seems to constitute a
significant loophole in the rules that the Minister is
contemplating.
Rob
Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): May I
reciprocate a favour that the hon. Lady extended to me earlier? I think
she will find the definition of devolved statistics in clause
63.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I am grateful for that clarification, but it
would still be useful to have further clarification from the Minister
as to how all this will work and how we will prevent it from leading to
further fragmentation problems.
In conclusion, I say only that
for the reasons we discussed earlier, the official Opposition would
like the opportunity to vote against the clause. We believe that the
board and not Ministers should set the rules on
pre-release.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
8.
Division
No.
11
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
On a
point of order, Mr. Olner. Not forthe first time,
my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did my job for
me. I was not quick enough to catch your eye. I want to say to the hon.
Member for Sevenoaks that I signed the letters on Friday. They went
into the system. I shall look into the fact that he and one or two
other members of the Committee have not received a copy of the letter.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that.
Clause 12Assessment
Mrs.
Villiers:
I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
clause 12, page 6, line 11, leave
out ‘At the request of the appropriate
authority’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 143, in
clause 12, page 6, line 12, leave
out ‘National’ and insert
‘official’.
No.
144, in
clause 12, page 6, line 13, leave
out ‘in relation to’ and insert ‘by the
authorities responsible for
producing’.
No.
184, in
clause 12, page 6, line 14, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In the
absence of a request from the appropriate authority under subsection
(1), the Board shall be permitted to assess and determine whether the
Code of Practice has been complied with in relation to any official
statistic, provided that it consults the authority responsible for
producing a relevant statistic before commencing the
assessment.’.
No.
145, in clause 12, page 6, leave out lines
15 to 18.
No. 146, in
clause 12, page 6, leave out lines 25 to
40.
No. 71, in
clause 12, page 6, line 40, at
end insert—
‘(9) The Board
shall have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate
any set of official statistics as National
Statistics.
(10) Before
initiating a process under subsection (9), the Board shall inform the
appropriate
authority.’.
No.
148, in
clause 14, page 7, line 17, leave
out ‘and
13(1)’.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I propose to be brief on this set of amendments
because it mainly raises the same issues about scope that were
discussed extensively on Thursday under the first group of amendments
to clause 10. Amendments Nos. 142 and 144 are linked to those that were
discussed in the earlier groups and would transform the duty of the
board to assess particular statistics against the requirements of the
code of practice into a duty to assess whether Government Departments
are complying with the
code.
Amendments Nos.
145, 146 and 148 are consequential changes that are linked with those
two amendments of substance. Their effect would broaden the scope of
the reform from statistics nominated by Ministers to become national
statistics to cover all official statistics. The Opposition strongly
support the amendments for reasons that were given at length in the
earlier debate. The Minister assured the Committee that he expected the
board to promote the code as a code of good practice throughout all
Departments. However, that still leaves in tact the two-tier structure
for statistics about which many have expressed concerns. It also still
leaves Departments free to ignore the code should they so wish in
relation to departmental statistics that are not national
statistics.
The board
would be without the authority to impose and enforce the code against
Departments. In the Minister’s words, it would have only an
audit function, not a regulatory one. As Dr. Ivan Fellegi, the chief
statistician of Canada, said to the Treasury Committee, it is a power
to name and shame. In effect, there is little difference between that
power and that which the
Statistics Commission already has, so for the reasons given in the
earlier debate the Opposition strongly support the
amendments.
Amendment
No. 184 is slightly different. It provides an alternative and less
radical way in which to tackle the same worry that we discussed on
Thursday. Rather than completely demolish the two-tier structure and
apply the code to all Departments, and hence to all official
statistics, the amendment would merely remove a Minister’s right
to veto the commencement of the assessment process for a statistic to
go into the national statistic system and be governed by the full
rigour of the reforms that we are debating
today.
Although the
change is not as comprehensive a change as that proposed under the
other amendments, it is a compromise option that would mitigate several
of the worries that have been expressed about the Bill. The board would
still have only an audit rather than a regulatory function, but at
least Ministers would no longer have the right to keep certain
departmental statistics out of the national statistics system or be
able to determine whether the legislation applied to their statistics
in full or not, which would remedy an important flaw in the
Bill.
As I said last
Thursday, it is difficult to see that the prospect of independent audit
and scrutiny will motivate Ministers to opt into the new system.
AsDr. Fellegi said to the Treasury Committee, that is more
likely to be a disincentive rather than an incentive to opt
in.
The Minister told
the Committee last week that he expected the proposed system to evolve,
but unless the Bill is amended it will evolve only at the pace that
Ministers wish. If the amendment is adopted, the board will have the
power to drive that process of evolution and determine which numbers
are important enough to be brought within the new framework and be
subjected to the code of practice as part of the national statistics
system.
The
Minister’s main counter to my argument was that some statistics
were important enough for the code to be applied to them and some were
not. The Opposition believe that all official statistics are important
enough to merit that treatment, and to merit good practice, integrity
and honesty. However, if we cannot persuade the Minister on that point
I hope he will consider the issue of who would take the decision about
which statistics are important enough to be subjected to the code of
practice.
The Minister
stated that there was a significant difference between statistics on
how many television licences the Department holds, for example, and
those on UK jobless figures. The Financial Secretary referred to those
two figures as being of a significantly different magnitude and he
argued that they should be subjected to different treatment, but who is
to say whether statistics on business survival rates or armed forces
medical discharge, for example, which are not national statistics, are
less important that the cider survey and the monthly statement on
bricks, blocks and cement, which at present are national
statistics?
The
Minister focused strongly on the distinction between important,
significant statistics that require the application of the code of
practice and what he saw as less significant statistics that did not
require the
application of the code of practice. At the very least, if that
distinction is as important as the Financial Secretary suggested, it
should be the board that takes that decision; it should not be left to
Ministers as that would leave a significant loophole in the framework
set up by the Bill. If the reform is to succeed, the board should make
the call on which statistics are important enough to be subject to a
code of integrity and impartiality. We hope that the Minister will
seriously consider accepting the amendment.
Dr.
Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): We are dealing with a
sub-set of issues around the bigger question of the two-tier system,
and the Minister’s role in deciding which should belong to which
category. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet helpfully suggested a
compromise to enable the board to have a role in the process. My
amendment, which in some respects is even more of a compromise, is
another way of approaching the same problem, but it gives the board a
status in the process.
We argue that
the board should have the authority to initiate an assessment process
to designate any set of official statistics as national statistics. At
least that would give the board some access to the problem to challenge
ministerial discretion. My amendment is a modest, compromise proposal
and I would be surprised if the Minister could advance strong reasons
why it is not acceptable. In the spirit of trying to find a middle way
between the Government’s proposals and an outright abolition of
the two-tier system, I hope that the Minister will accept one or other
of the amendments.
4.45
pm
John
Healey:
The Opposition seem to be proposing what is, to
put it bluntly, an extraordinary arrangement in amendments Nos. 142 to
146 and 148. The proposal appears to be that the board will assess all
official statistics against the same code and without specific requests
for it to do so. To me and, I hope, to other members of the Committee,
that is clearly absurd. It is a certain recipe for rendering the board
ineffective. The approach proposed by the hon. Member for Chipping
Barnet risks drawing the new statistics board into a sea of statistical
assessments and
approvals.
The
statistics produced by several hundred public bodies are already
captured in the core definition of official statistics that we have
debated and approved in clause 6. The range is vast and the volume is
greater still, but often, I have to say, in inverse proportion to their
importance. I have been doing a bit of work to try to gauge some of the
statistics that, under clause 6, will constitute official statistics,
including the sources of those data, which increasingly are new under
freedom of information in relation to parliamentary
questions.
Examples
of what would now be classified as official statistics include, from
parliamentary questions, the level and source of departmental income
arising from unclaimed lost property in the royal parks, the number of
calls made from call centres in the Department for Transport using
predictive diallers, how much has been spent by the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport on dieting and vitamin supplements since 1997
and—this is my favourite—the total amount spent on
Ferrero Rocher chocolates in UK embassies.
John
Healey:
My hon. Friend obviously takes a closer interest
in the detail than I do. I am the Minister for statistics and, although
I noticed that the question was asked, I did not investigate the
answer. He might like to check Hansard for himself on that and
do his own
research.
Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): I did not
ask the question, but as Ferrero Rocher is based in my constituency in
the UK, may I say that I think such consumption should be
encouraged?
John
Healey:
I suspect that there may be a multiple of hits on
the Hansard search engine after our proceedings. I welcome the
constituency connection that the hon. Gentleman
has.
Mrs.
Villiers:
The Minister is very gracious in giving way
again. I think that he has misunderstood the impact of amendments Nos.
142 to 144. They would not require the board to carry out an assessment
process in relation to each and every statistic; they would require the
board to monitor the statistical activities of the different
Departments. That is a different
thing.
John
Healey:
With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not
misunderstand her argument at all, because she has made it several
times. Her fundamental objection is to what she calls two-tier
statistics. The case that the range of official statistics that I have
set out in my exposition can or should be treated in the same way for
the board’s assessment and approval functions is clearly flawed.
I hope that at least we can agree on that
principle.
However, it
is right and it is reasonable, as the hon. Lady has also argued, that
we expect all official statistics to be produced with integrity. We
have discussed that point in Committee and I confirm that I entirely
accept it, for this reason. We have given the board an objective of
monitoring the production and publication of all official statistics
and commenting on concerns about the quality and good practice in
relation to all official statistics. I have also made it clear that I
expect that the board will do that in part through promoting the code
of practice for national statistics as a code of practice across all
official statistics, clearly laying out good practice and standards in
the production of statistics for all to
follow.
However,
the active assessment programme will necessarily bring with it certain
resource and operational implications for the board and the data
producers. Rightly, we want to concentrate the programme on the core
statistics that are the key indicators on which the Government,
business and the public rely for an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive
and meaningful description of the United Kingdom in this day and
age.
Surely what is
important is not that all official statistics should be covered by the
assessment and approval function and remit of the board, but that all
the most important statistics are. That is why we have said that the
established set of about 1,300 national
statistics will be subject from the outset to the new system of
independent board assessment and approval against the code of practice
that the board will draw up and use for such
assessments.
Rob
Marris:
Am I misreading, or does my hon. Friend agree that
were amendments Nos. 142 to 144 to be accepted, clause 12(1) would
read, “The Board must, in accordance with this Part, assess and
determine whether the Code of Practice for Official Statistics under
section 10 has been complied with by the authorities responsible for
producing any official
statistics.”?
John
Healey:
My hon. Friend has a keen eye for detail, and in
my view he is absolutely right. I started by saying that the practical
effects of amendmentsNos. 142 to 146 and amendment No. 148
were precisely as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has tried to
argue in principle. She does not accept the concept of two-tier
statistics—that some statistics are more important than others
and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Under our proposals, there
will be a rigorous, independent system of assessment and approval. My
hon. Friend is right. If the hon. Lady seeks to press the amendments, I
shall ask my hon. Friends to resist them.
If we accept that it is right
in principle to concentrate on what matters most, that raises the
question of where to draw the boundary in practice. This debate is
important, because it cuts to the heart of the proposals in the Bill
and the concerns that some have
expressed.
The nature
and number of official statistics is ever-changing and rapidly
increasing, and the boundaries are becoming blurred. As I showed with
one or two perhaps extreme examples, they are very wide-ranging. We
have drawn the scope of official statistics as defined in the Bill
extremely wide and flexible on purpose. We did so to reflect our desire
that the board should be able to promote and safeguard the quality of
the wide and ever-evolving range of data produced and used by the
Government.
In seeking to
frame a practical and principled argument about where any boundary or
definition may be drawn, it is important to understand the changing
nature of Government statistics—particularly if one wants to
argue that the current set of national statistics is not the right
starting point, despite the fact that our system can evolve in future.
The changing nature of statistics and the method of their collection
means that we no longer use only the traditional collection methods of
census and survey. Increasingly, important statistics are derived from
administrative and management systems such as those used for the
delivery of the benefit or education systems.
Undoubtedly, statistics derived
in that way are often important—often more so than the examples
that I gave earlier. However, they impose additional and different
statistical challenges, given that the primary purpose of the system
that produces the data is not itself statistical.
For example, concerns have been
expressed, including during our consideration of this Bill, about Home
Office statistics. However, as we have heard in recent weeks, apparent
statistical problems are in fact a
manifestation of other problems that are not statistical. Of course we
would want to deal with those statistical issues, but the solutions are
primarily administrative or policy-related and not statistical. It
would be unrealistic and misleading to suggest otherwise. With the best
will in the world, there may be occasions when data derived from
management or administrative systems would not and could not meet the
standards set out in a code of statistical practice.
The current scope of national
statistics in this country is wide and comparable with those of most of
our international comparators. However, the additional benefit of the
proposed system is that it does have the scope to evolve in the light
of experience. Therefore, additional statistics can be put forward for
assessment and approval as new national statistics, thus allowing both
adaptation to changing statistical demands and an increase in the scope
of national
statistics.
I will not
rehearse our arguments about where this responsibility should lie
unless the Committee particularly presses me. I have explained why
Ministers must ultimately decide, given their responsibility for their
Departments. Equally, I have been clear that the board will be able to
comment on which statistics should be national ones.
On Second Reading, the hon.
Member for Sevenoaks suggested that if the board had the power to
recommend that change, it would be
“a huge comfort to those of us
worried about that point. Nobody is arguing that every conceivable line
of official statistics should become a national statistic at the whim
of the board”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol.
455, c. 108.]
I hope
that that is still his view now that we are in Committee because I have
said not only that I would expect the board to comment on which
statistics should be national ones but that this will encourage more
statistics into the system. I have been very clear that one of the
board’s objectives in discharging its responsibilities is to
safeguard the comprehensiveness of the official statistics system,
including national statistics. However, in the end, Parliament has the
scope and the role under the provisions of this Bill to hold Ministers
and the board to account for what they do and do not decide to
do.
Therefore,
I do expect the board to comment on such matters. I also expect
Parliament to take a strong interest in those matters—and the
board’s statements on them—and to call Ministers to
account when departmental outputs or activities have been commented on,
but not recommended, for inclusion as national statistics. I hope that
this has been a useful debate and that, in the light of my further
clarification and explanation, hon. Members will not press amendment
No.142 or seek to move the others in the
group.
Dr.
Cable:
The Minister has made some
sensible points, but he has not answered the issue raised in amendment
No.78. He quite correctly said that the decision as to whether
something should be a national or an official statistic must be
governed by considerations other than statistical ones, such as
administrative factors. That is absolutely true and a perfectly valid
point. That is why it is important and quite right to say that one does
not need some overarching bureaucratic structure which necessarily
involves the board.
However, he
then conceded the central point that the board should have a role in
making comments. How is that different from our suggestion that the
board be given the authority to initiate an assessment process to
designate any set of statistics official or national and a pro-active
role in selecting cases that seem anomalous. The Minister’s
essential point is that the definition will remain fluid and determined
by many other factors which are not necessarily statistical so what is
the problem with the proposed
amendment?
5
pm
Mrs.
Villiers:
The Minister may consider that
the Opposition’s proposals are not practical, but they are
supported by a range of organisations which contributed to the
consultation process. I drew the Committee’s attention to their
comments at great length on Thursday afternoon. I do not propose to do
that again, but the Committee should listen when organisations such as
the Statistics Commission, the Royal Statistical Society and a host of
other organisations that responded to the consultation express strong
support for the abolition of the two-tier system and for expanding the
scope of the code of conduct to official statistics. That is evidence
that this is not some hare-brained, impractical scheme. There is no
reason why we cannot trust the board to come up with a proportionate
and common-sense code of practice that is capable of being applied
across the board to the statistical activities of
Departments.
Like the
Minister, I will not rehearse the arguments that we pursued on Thursday
and on Second Reading, but if a statistic is worth producing and
relying on, it is worth producing in accordance with the principle of
good practice that will be set out in the statutory code at the heart
of this reform.
The
Minister himself said that there was an issue as to where to draw the
boundary between those statistics that are and those that are not
sufficiently important to be subjected to the code of practice . We do
not believe that that boundary should be drawn at all, for the reasons
that I have given. However, the Minister acknowledged that the boundary
was crucial and said a few minutes ago that it went to the heart of the
matter. Yet it is Ministers who will decide the boundary under the
scheme proposed by the Government. If this is really at the heart of
the matter and the Bill—I agree with him that it is
important—I appeal to the Minister to accept amendment No. 184.
Even the amendment tabled by my Liberal colleague, the hon. Member for
Twickenham, would do something to mitigate the problem; the boundary
would be determined by the board and not by Ministers. That would mean
that many of the concerns expressed by people such as Lord Moser, and
by the Statistics Commission and the RSS would be answered. It is not
ideal, but it is a sensible and defensible compromise.
If the Minister is so
enthusiastic about the board’s power to comment on the scope of
national statistics and its power to recommend the designation of a
statistic as a national statistic, why can he not go that one bit
further, give the board real teeth and allow it to require that the
assessment process is started? If the Minister wants to claim the place
in history that the
hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said was there for the taking,
I appeal to him to accept amendment No.184 or others in this
group.
John
Healey:
I feel that I should respond to
the hon. Member for Twickenham. We had a principled and detailed debate
about the points that he raised today in a sitting last week that he
may not have attended. In essence, in a decentralised system the
responsibility for submitting statistics for assessment must lie with
the Departments. My argument is that Ministers are responsible for
making policy and arguably, as such, are better placed to know which
statistics are most critical for the development and delivery of that
policy. Ministers are also responsible and accountable for allocating
and managing resources in their Department, including those devoted to
statistical production. Principally, I see those as policy and resource
decisions and, therefore, as more appropriate matters for Ministers
than for the statistics board. I hope that that is helpful to the hon.
Gentleman and does not try the patience of the Committee too
much.
I am still not
persuaded by the arguments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.
No matter how many representations she has received in support of them,
they are not necessarily right or practical. I urge my hon. Friends to
resist them.
The
Chairman:
Order. Which amendments is the hon. Lady
prepared to withdraw and which does she wish to press to a
vote?
Mrs.
Villiers:
I would be grateful if theCommittee
were able to vote on amendments Nos. 142 and
184.
Question put,
That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
12
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly
negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
184, in clause 12, page 6, line 14, at end
insert—
‘(1A) In the absence
of a request from the appropriate authority under subsection (1), the
Board shall be permitted to assess and determine whether the Code of
Practice hasbeen complied with in relation to any official
statistic, provided that it consults the authority responsible for
producing arelevant statistic before commencing the
assessment.’.—[Mrs.
Villiers.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
10.
Division No.
13
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
71, in clause 12, page 6, line 40, at end
insert—
‘(9) The Board shall
have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any
set of official statistics as National
Statistics.
(10) Before
initiating a process under subsection (9), the Board shall inform the
appropriate authority.’.—[Dr.
Cable.]
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
10.
Division
No.
14
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 12 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 25 January 2007 |