---

Another important area will be whether the budgetary settlement has in fact given an adequate basis on which the new Statistics Board can operate.

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1409

When we discussed the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, the Government made much play of the five-year settlement made outside the Comprehensive Spending Review process. However, we never quite believed in the substance of that. A five-year settlement is good only if it is set at the right level, and as anyone who has experienced this year’s CSR process will know, those who settle outside the main process, when the final decisions are taken, tend to be at the bottom end of the settlement range.

We see a parliamentary committee as having an important role in assessing the adequacy of resources devoted to statistics and to the Statistics Board. The committee should obviously have a role in seeing how well the new board establishes itself in practice. It will, of course, have a role in appointments made to the board in due course, in much the same way as the Treasury Select Committee had in another place when the chairman-elect was appointed in the summer. The committee clearly has a significant workload in examining the Statistics Board itself, at least initially while it establishes itself, but the core of the committee’s work will run alongside the work that the Statistics Board will be doing to examine statistics with a view to restoring confidence in those statistics. That must of course involve the work that the Statistics Board does with departments, as the majority of statistics will continue to be produced outside the board and within government departments.

When the Statistics Board begins its work in earnest, much of its effectiveness will depend on how well it establishes its natural authority in the statistics world within government. It will also depend on how well it uses quiet persuasion to achieve its ends. However, even if it does establish pre-eminent leadership and constructive relationships across government to deliver results, I am sure that issues will remain that are not easily resolved. We fully expect that the Statistics Board will be using its ability to report publicly on what it has found. We therefore see an important role for the committee in examining departments whose statistics have been found wanting.

We know that permanent secretaries quake at the thought of having to appear before the Public Accounts Committee following reports by the National Audit Office. I hope that the new parliamentary committee can establish itself similarly in respect of reports by the Statistics Board. If a visit to the committee to defend non-compliance with the code of practice or the deliberate exclusion of dodgy statistics from the ambit of national statistics becomes unpleasant for permanent secretaries, that will enhance the status and effectiveness of the Statistics Board. In that way, the committee can genuinely contribute directly to the restoration of trust in statistics.

It is clear that I have in mind a heavy-hitting parliamentary committee. Noble Lords might think that my reference to a visit to the committee as being unpleasant might rule out a committee that involved Members of your Lordships’ House. It is not an overstatement to say that the style and tone of the two Houses, both in the Chamber and in Committee, are somewhat different. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this when he spoke. I would hope, however,

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1410

that the combination of the tough and somewhat political style of our colleagues in another place would blend very well with our rather quieter approach in this instance to produce highly effective parliamentary scrutiny. As others have said, Joint Committees already work extremely well. We know that they work well on draft legislation, but they also work well on human rights and statutory instruments, which offers sound evidence that the committee will work well for statistics.

I should say that the work done by the sub-committee of the Treasury Select Committee in another place, chaired by my honourable friend Mr Michael Fallon, has done excellent work on statistics in the past. As we have heard, the shift of responsibility for the board from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office means that the existing arrangements must be re-examined. That, of course, give us a golden opportunity to leverage the skills of both Houses in the cause of improving public trust in statistics.

I hope that the Minister will not break the spell of unanimity we have had in the Chamber this evening and will commit the Government to a Joint Committee. I know that he will say that it is not Governments who set up committees but Parliament. But we all know that, in practice, the usual channels have a great say, and the Government have a large say in the usual channels. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

6.50 pm

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on obtaining this debate and introducing it in his usual skilful way. I feel rather like the new boy on his first day in class, particularly surrounded by those who have long experience of dealing with this matter in this House. I am also grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their welcome. I am not sure that it will survive the 12 minutes I have to put the Government’s case, but I will do my best.

Other noble Lords will forgive me if I say that the noble Lord, Lord Moser, has a reputation unmatched in this field in the country. I was particularly pleased about his support for the appointment of Sir Michael Scholar to the chairmanship of the new body; that is great support indeed.

Your Lordships’ comments have been very valuable and I will attempt to do them justice in my reply. We of course share many views. The Government have always been clear that we expect Parliament to play the central role in holding the reformed statistical system to account, and that that role will be enhanced under these reforms. We have sought views in the original consultation document and in debate in this House and the other place as to whether there were ways to strengthen the direct accountability of the board to Parliament. The Government believe—and this seems to be the general view—that it is primarily for Parliament to decide for itself the arrangements it wishes to make to scrutinise the new Statistics Board. Of course, the noble Baroness is right: the Government will obviously have a say in that decision.

Noble Lords will of course know, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, that the residual ministerial responsibilities for the system are transferred to the

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1411

Cabinet Office. One effect of this transfer is that responsibility for scrutinising the statistical system and the operations of the Statistics Board in the other place will transfer from the Treasury Select Committee to the Public Administration Select Committee. This reflects the generally accepted principle that parliamentary oversight of public bodies falls to the committee responsible for oversight of the home department.

The nub of this debate is the idea—widely supported around the House this evening, I concede—of a Joint Committee of both Houses being the relevant committee for the new commission. I am afraid that we cannot share the enthusiasm shown for this model, for a number of reasons which I will attempt to set out in the remaining time.

What should be the parliamentary mechanism for scrutinising this new set-up? As noble Lords are aware, under the new arrangements the board will report directly to Parliament, not to a Minister. The onus will be on Parliament to take an active interest in and respond to the reports that the board makes to it. We feel that such a committee—a Joint Committee of both Houses—would replicate what departmental and other Select Committees are already empowered to do.

We expect the Public Administration Select Committee to be the proper committee to scrutinise the operations of the board and the wider statistical system in the other place. It should be remembered that the departmental committees in the other place will continue to scrutinise statistics that relate to their areas of interest, and we have had references to some of those areas this evening. For example, crime statistics will be scrutinised by the Home Affairs Committee. The relevant committees in this House will be able to continue their valuable work in scrutinising statistics that relate to their areas of interest, including the Economic Affairs Committee.

We believe that the Public Administration Select Committee of another place will be able to take the cross-departmental, strategic view of the statistical system that noble Lords argue is so necessary to the scrutiny of the new Statistics Board. We feel that one of the advantages of the transfer of residual responsibilities from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office is that the scrutiny of the statistical system falls naturally to the Cabinet Office’s committee. The Cabinet Office has an overarching strategic view across government, and we think that not to choose that Select Committee would be unnecessarily to unpick one of the key advantages of this transfer of responsibilities. The Public Administration Select Committee will be able to call the chair of the Statistics Board to give evidence to it as well as the National Statistician, as at present. It will be able to take a cross-departmental strategic view of the statistical system, which is one of the advantages of the transfer.

We have always said that we see Parliament’s role as central to the successful implementation of these reforms, and we trust that the Public Administration Select Committee will gain a lot of its practical authority from having the active interest of MPs behind it. We agree with the noble Baroness that the Treasury Select

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1412

Committee in the other place has done an excellent job in holding the system to account, despite having many other areas of responsibility.

In its report on the Government’s reforms, the committee expressed the wish that it would retain responsibility for scrutiny of the statistical system under the new arrangements, even though residual ministerial responsibilities have been transferred to the Cabinet Office. It shows that the committee considered the level of resource and attention it could apply to the scrutiny of the system.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when was that comment made? That is not the information that I have. Mr Fallon told me expressly that he supported the idea of a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall try to have the answer for the noble Lord before the end of my speech. If I do not get it, I shall write to him.

We believe that the Public Administration Select Committee will be able to take the cross-departmental strategic view.

Why not a Joint Committee of both Houses? The precedent referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We think there are some distinctions to be made. It is the only really comparable example, but one of the main reasons why that committee was created was that neither House had much of a track record of effective scrutiny of human rights. That is not true for statistics. Our second reason is that we can see no justification for undermining the overriding principle of departmental scrutiny. I shall not go into the issue of what the previous Financial Secretary said; that has been debated already. Of course, the depth of knowledge and wisdom shown by noble Lords has created the high-class debates that we have had. As I said earlier, it is for Parliament to decide what to do. It is for this House to decide how to make best use of the knowledge and expertise of its Members in its own arrangements for scrutinising the statistics system.

Of course, noble Lords are more than adept, using all the procedures available to them, to scrutinise the activity of all branches of government. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moser, that enhanced scrutiny is absolutely crucial to the success or otherwise of this undertaking. We know that Select Committees need and often have their own expert advisers, and there is no reason to believe that that would not occur if the Public Administration Select Committee was the scrutiny committee here. We also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Committee needs to be strong and must hold departments to account. If I may, I shall convey that message strongly from this House to the Leader in another place.

We are not persuaded that in this instance a Joint Committee of both Houses is the best answer. As I said, it is for Parliament to make up its mind whether that is what it wants. I shall end by answering one or two points that have been made. We are grateful for the offer of free expert advice from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and of course there is that expert advice

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1413

to be had. We are not alone; we have had a good response from applicants wishing to sit on the board to give advice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that the funding for the board might not be enough. I understand that the settlement for the new board was for £1.2 billion over a five-year period. I respectfully suggest that that is not a small sum.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord is new to this area. It sounds like a large sum, but when he understands the savings that need to be made and the cuts in resources necessary to achieve that, he might take a slightly different view. Let us not just be bemused by adding up five years’ worth and saying it is a lot of money.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as someone who many years ago served in the Ministry of Defence, I certainly do not think that £1.2 billion is the largest sum in the world. We shall have to see whether or not it is enough.

The rejection of a Joint Committee—if it is to be rejected—is a matter for Parliament, but that does not mean that the Government do not take the need for scrutiny seriously. Even though noble Lords will be

29 Nov 2007 : Column 1414

disappointed in the Government’s reaction, I hope that they will still believe that we are convinced that scrutiny is critical.

I just have time, I hope, to answer the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, a few minutes ago. The Treasury Select Committee made its comment that he asked me about in its report on the Government’s reforms.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that was two years ago.

Lord Bach: My Lords, if it was two years ago, I shall write to the noble Lord with the proper answer to his proper intervention.

I say again that it is for Parliament to decide how to employ the Select Committee process, to scrutinise the new statistical framework and to hold the board, in particular, to account. I repeat that each House is free to make the arrangements it sees fit. Noble Lords will no doubt go away today to consider further how best to use the expertise and experience available in this House. It remains for me to thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for making their case as strongly as they have.

House adjourned at 7.05 pm.

---