Clause 12
Statistics and Registration Service Bill
4:30 pm
Theresa Villiers (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
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.