 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Statistics and Registration Service Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 25 January 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Bill Olner in the Chair]Statistics and Registration Service BillClause 45Power
to authorise disclosure to the Board:
Scotland
1
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): As we have been
talking about the need to share data and the clause is among a set that
deals with devolved bodies, I wanted to ask how we deal with the
fragmentation of statistics and what co-operation exists with devolved
Administrations. We know that the census agreement for 2011 has been
signed by the three Registrars General of England and Wales, of
Scotland and of Northern Ireland. None the less, the Treasury Committee
report “Independence for Statistics” raised a concern
that the fragmentation of some statistics across the UK was continuing.
One of the report’s recommendations was to review the concordat
on statistics. It states that the Select
Committee
“welcome the
Minister’s commitment, on behalf of the Government, to review
the Concordat on Statistics, particularly in light of his suggestion
that, while this fragmentation has been an issue for some time because
of differing local circumstances and requirements, devolution has led
to an inevitable intensification of the
problem.”
It goes on to
recommend
“that the
Government negotiate a revised Concordat with the devolved
administrations, that the National Statistician, in consultation with
the chief statisticians for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, be
given responsibility for drafting a revised Concordat and that the new
independent board be given responsibility for monitoring the
implementation of the revised Concordat.”
Taking into account that
recommendation and the evidence of witnesses who believe that recent
experience has provoked the need to review the issue now, surely it
makes sense for a review and renegotiation to take place. I am asking
for the Minister’s commitment not only to review the concordat
but to renew it. What plans does he have to update
that?
The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
If the hon. Lady looks at the official record of our discussions on
Tuesday afternoon, she will see that we had quite a good debate on
devolution and concerns about the coherence, comprehensiveness and
co-ordination of statistics. I will not reiterate the detailed points
covered by the Committee, but I will say
one thing about the Treasury Committee and then deal specifically with
the concordat, as I accept that we did not deal with it in particular
detail on Tuesday afternoon. The hon. Lady will find that the Treasury
Committee report was published before I could announce the full
participation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the
Bill’s provisions. She will also probably find that that
participation was welcomed by members of the Select Committee as well
as by Opposition
Front-Benchers.
As
the hon. Lady said, I made it clear when I gave evidence to the
Treasury Committee that we had begun work with the devolved
Administrations to take a fresh look at the concordat and see where it
needed updating and strengthening. The concordat is an important and
useful arrangement that cannot be replicated or imported into primary
legislation, so it has an important part to play alongside the
Bill.
The hon. Lady
will appreciate that producing UK statistics, and doing so in a
combined way when those statistics relate to devolved matters, relies
on the co-operation of the devolved Administrations rather than on
legislation. All Administrations expressed their commitment to
co-operation in the concordat, which was annexed to the memorandum of
understanding on devolution in 2001. Given that it set the overall
framework for co-operation and was supported by other non-legislative
bilateral agreements between the Administrations, that framework had
the full support of the devolved Administrations. The framework
document described in detail how the framework for national statistics,
which we introduced in 2000, would operate in each Administration.
There is clearly more to do, and that is probably the reason behind the
hon. Lady’s concern. I strongly welcome the decision of
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to sign up to the legislation. It
will give the board a role working with all four Administrations. I
expect the board’s objective of promoting and safeguarding the
quality of official statistics, which includes coherence with other
statistics, as stated explicitly in clause 7(2)(b), to give it a role
in promoting consistent statistics throughout the United
Kingdom.
To further
our aim for improvement in the consistency and coherent co-ordination
of statistics, we are working with the devolved Administrations to see
whether other, non-legislative mechanisms may be needed to support the
Bill, including the possible revision of the concordat on statistics
between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I hope that
the hon. Lady is reassured that we are working on those non-legislative
matters with the commitment of all four Administrations, although the
work that we are doing on the legislation may be more
obvious.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 45
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
46 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 47Power
to authorise use of information by the
board
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
John
Healey:
I think that the Committee may wish for a brief
explanation of the clause, as it is an important part of the Bill. It
sets out a mechanism that allows the board to use information that is
received from a public authority, by creating a power for the Treasury
to make regulations to authorise the use of that information, where
there is an existing legal barrier to the board’s using it. The
power may be used to allow the board to use for additional purposes
information that it has already received, which could allow it to
improve the quality of statistics. That in turn could improve policy
making, resource allocation and the delivery of public services. The
power may also be used to reduce the burden on data providers, such as
requests for businesses and individuals to fill out surveys, by
removing the need to collect information that is already held by the
board.
The clause
uses the same mechanism as that in clauses 44 to 46. Regulations must
be made with the consent of another Minister of the Crown who, together
with the Treasury, must be satisfied that the disclosure is required
for the board to carry out the functions for which the disclosure is
authorised, and that the disclosure is in the public
interest.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 47
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 52Cessation
of Office for National Statistics
etc
Mrs.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con): I wish to speak
briefly on the clause, which envisages the abolition of the Office for
National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. I take this
opportunity to pay tribute to the work of both those
organisations.
With
regard to the ONS, the key problem that we have focused on is the
treatment by Ministers of statistics. Of course it is important to
consider the methodology and quality of the production of statistics,
but there is consensus that they are of high quality. The problem that
we are trying to address is political interference, or the perception
of it, in the fruits of the labours of statisticians. I pay tribute to
the high quality of the work of Government
statisticians.
I also
congratulate the Statistics Commission on its excellent work since it
was founded in 2000, and I give credit to the Government for setting it
up. It has been a fearless defender of statistical integrity and a
fearless critic of ministerial activities in a number of instances. As
we have stated, it is a weakness of the Bill that it merges the
activities of the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics
Commission. That was why we tabled a number of amendments to separate
responsibility for the production of statistics from the responsibility
to scrutinise their production and release. There would have been a
much more effective structure if the Bill had kept those functions
separate, as illustrated by the effective role played by the Statistics
Commission in the past few
years.
Mr.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): My hon. Friend the
Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to single out the
clause. It is contained in a part of the Bill entitled
“Consequential” but it is not entirely
consequential. We are, of course, replacing the ONS with the statistics
board, but we are abolishing the only watchdog that we have, the
Statistics Commission. I, too, as the chairman of the Sub-Committee to
which the commission was accountable, wish to pay tribute to its work
under first Sir John Kingman and then Professor David Rhind. They had a
small budget and a small staff, which has contributed in no small
measure to the proposed
improvements.
I ask
the Financial Secretary for more detail on the timetable for the
abolition of the two bodies. As I understand clause 71, it refers to
different commencement orders being laid for different provisions. I am
not sure whether the abolition will have to come into force as a whole
or whether it will be possible to delay the commencement of clause
52(b)—the abolition of the commission—until we are sure
that the appropriate replacement scrutiny functions are in place. I
understand why the board will take on the existing functions and staff
of the ONS—that is quite clear. It does not necessarily follow
that within a week or so of the Bill being passed the Statistics
Commission, our only watchdog, must be swept away. Given the pace with
which change is implemented in the House, it is wholly possible that
the House willnot have come to a conclusion on the scrutiny
arrangements that it wishes to make to replace the Statistics
Commission.
I
understand that it is not for the Financial Secretary or the Government
to prescribe the new scrutiny arrangements. Indeed he has emphasised,
if I am right, that that will be a matter for the House as a whole or
probably for both Houses of Parliament. However, it is in the gift of
the Financial Secretary to decide when the existing watchdog will be
abolished under the clause. Can he confirm that it will be possible for
him to delay the commencement order in clause 52(b) if he
wishesto do so?
Will the Minister give the
Committee further illustration of the proposed timetable? Is it
intended to abolish both bodies swiftly after the Bill is passed, or is
there to be a longer implementation period? He will understand that a
large number of staff not only of the ONS but of the commission will be
affected. It would be helpful if he indicated the timetable for the
replacement of the two bodies that are being abolished.
1.15
pm
John
Healey:
I shall begin by replying to the hon. Member for
Chipping Barnet, and then I shall turn to the questions that the hon.
Member for Sevenoaks asked.
The clause provides for the
Office of National Statistics and the Statistics Commission to cease to
exist as administrative entities. “Abolition” of the
Office of National Statistics, as the hon. Lady put it, is rather
misleading and inappropriate, because its functions and service will be
carried out under the legal remit of the board, which will become the
legal entity.
John
Healey:
I have trouble saying that word, let alone
understanding its proper application. However, I accept the hon.
Lady’s point.
The board
will assume all functions that the Office of National Statistics
undertakes, with the exception of the civil registration duties. I am
not sure that “abolition” is entirely appropriate or that
it pays due recognition to the role of the Statistics Commission. Its
work has paved the way for the Bill, its responsibilities will be
assumed by the board, and the commission has contributed a great deal
to our understanding of how important it is for the statistics system
to evolve.
I join in
paying special tribute to the chairmen who have served the Statistics
Commission and to their work. Over the seven years of its existence,
they have consistently produced high-quality, wide-ranging research and
reports, which have greatly added to our understanding of how the
system has worked, and have given us ideas about how to fashion it in
the future.
We have
made it clear before that the property rights and liabilities of the
ONS will transfer to the board. Any statutory references to the ONS
will be amended after Royal Assent so that they refer to the
board.
In response
to the questions that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked, I have in
earlier discussions about the Bill been clear that at an appropriate
point during its passage, I shall consider the appointment of a
chairman to the shadow statistics board, allowing him or her to start
without delay preparations to put the board in place. I shall do so
without offending any propriety of this House or of the other place.
However, all hon. Members will agree that the current shape of the
statistics system will not benefit from undue delay, and if we can move
properly to ensure that the transition is as rapid and as smooth as
possible, we should.
I have also been clear that if
Parliament assents to the Bill, we want the board in place and in
operation from April 2008. The Statistics Commission has already
undertaken some useful work to prepare what it believes could form the
basis of a code of practice. It will be one of the board’s
responsibilities, and central to the operation of the new statistical
system. The commission is undertaking important work with us to prepare
to hand over its responsibilities to the statistics board.
The short answer to the second
question askedby the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is that it is
theoretically, legally and technically possible to delay the
implementation of paragraph (b). However, it is probably most
appropriate to ensure that the changes are implemented together, not
least because the commission’s responsibilities will become the
board’s and there is no obvious sense or gain in having two
competing bodies with the same responsibilities. I hope that that is
helpful to hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I ask
that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr.
Fallon:
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary first of
all for what he said about the Statistics Commission and secondly for
making it clear that different parts of this section could in fact be
brought into effect on different
dates.
I am not sure
that he has gone as far as he can on the point about the watchdog. I am
not sure that he fully appreciated what I was saying and perhaps I did
not
put it as fully as I should have done. If the new board comes into
operation in April 2008, Parliament cannot set up a fresh scrutiny
process. It cannot scrutinise a board that does not exist. If the
Statistics Commission is abolished, therefore, in its watchdog
function—I appreciate that some of its functions are
transferring to the board— once the board begins its legal
existence, as he hopes, in April 2008 there is going to be a gap in the
scrutiny arrangements before new arrangements are put into place. I
urge him, if he to reflect on that point. Parliament can scrutinise the
statistics board only once it gets going in April 2008 and I still
suggest there may be some merit in continuing the life of the
Statistics Commission at least for the rest of this year so that we are
not left with a gap when no one is scrutinising what is being
proposed.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger, not
uncharacteristically, on quite an important point, but I think he would
accept that it really cannot be for me to propose or set the terms in
which Parliament considers how it wants to play its proper role of
scrutinising and holding the new system to account or indeed the pace
at which Parliament considers that. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope, and
I know from the interest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the
House takes in these matters, that such discussionsand any
decisions that may be appropriate will not be left until the statistics
board is up and running inApril 2008.
It also seems to me, although
the hon. Gentleman may have greater experience and be able to
contradict me on this, that Parliament can set itself up in any way
that it chooses to scrutinise whatever it chooses. If Parliament
decides that certain arrangements are appropriate for the new system, I
can see no immediate reason why it should not set such arrangements up
whenever it wished. Perhaps I am tempting fate, but it may well be
that, if Parliament does that, it will take an active interest in
scrutinising and holding to account the preparation that Ministers and
others are making for the full operation of the new system that will, I
hope, come into force, in April
2008.
I do not see
the problem that the hon. Gentleman points to. Although it is not
within my authority or remit to solve this, I hope that he will play
his part in Parliament in making sure that scrutiny and accountability
arrangements are in place in good time. I do not see the strength of
his argument for prolonging the existence of the Statistics Commission
when we will have in place a statistics board taking over the
responsibilities of the Statistics Commission, with a much wider and
more powerful remit to
boot.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 52
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 26 January 2007 |