Clause
10
Code of Practice for National
Statistics
Mrs.
Villiers:
I beg to move amendment No. 140, in
clause 10, page 5, line 7, leave
out ‘National’ and insert
‘official’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 91, in
clause 10, page 5, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(1A) All those
who produce or release official statistics
must—
(a) comply with
the Code under the provisions of subsection (1), consulting the Board
on matters of interpretation where appropriate;
and
(b) report to the Board any
breaches of the
Code.’.
No.
19, in
clause 10, page 5, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The Board,
government departments, the Scottish Administration, Welsh Ministerial
authorities, Northern Ireland departments and any other person acting
on behalf of the Crown in the production or publication of official
statistics shall—
(a) be bound by the Code of Practice for National
Statistics;
(b) consult the
Board on any matter of interpretation of the Code that may be
necessary; and
(c) report to
the Board any breach of the
Code.’.
No.
93, in
clause 10, page 5, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(6) The Board
shall lay before Parliament a report setting out any breach reported to
it under subsection (1A) as soon as possible after the breach has
occurred.’.
Mrs.
Villiers:
Amendment No. 140 would turn the code of
practice for national statistics into a code of practice that covered
all official statistics. It is supplemented and supported by amendment
No. 91, which imposes on those who produce official statistics a legal
obligation to obey the code. Together, the amendments would abolish the
two-tier system that distinguishes between national statistics and
other official statistics and ensure that the full rigour of the
reforms applies across all official statistics, whether they are
produced by the ONS or by Departments.
Before turning to the
substantive issues that surround amendments Nos. 91 and 140, to broaden
the scope of the code in the way that I have described, I should like
to take some time to deal with the technical issues that arise from
this group of amendments. It is necessary to go through them to
understand the restructuring of the Bill that amendments Nos. 91 and
140, and some later consequential amendments, involve.
The Opposition consider it to be
a matter of concern that the Bill does not require anybody to comply
with the code of practice. Amendment No. 91 would impose such an
obligation. We feel that imposing a legal obligation would give real
statutory force to the code and the new regime for statistics and
strengthen the ability of the board to hold the producers of official
statistics to account. It then must be decided on whom the obligation
should be imposed.
The
Bill envisages that the code of practice will apply to sets of numbers.
In fact, the focus should be on the institutions that produce the
statistics; there should be a code of ethics and good practice for
producers. That point is strongly made by the Statistics Commission,
which has emphasised the importance of the code’s applying to
the activities of Government bodies, rather than providing a means of
kite-marking individual sets of numbers. The code of practice should
set out ethical guidelines for the way in which Departments operate in
relation to statistical matters. The board should monitor the behaviour
of the relevant authorities to determine whether they have complied
with the code across the board, rather than focusing on certain sets of
statistics.
Our
amendments would give the board the supervisory and regulatory powers
that, as the Financial Secretary acknowledged this morning, it lacks
under the Bill. The Committee will note that paragraph (a) of amendment
No. 91 would require the relevant authorities to consult the board on
matters of the code’s interpretation. That would address a
problem with the existing non-statutory code, which has been
interpreted differently by the Statistics Commission and Departments.
In its 2005-06 annual report, the commission said:
“Only a few parts of the
present Code are of a kind that allow an independent judgment to be
made about compliance. Much of the Code is non-prescriptive and
requires no specific
evidence.”
That ambiguity
has led to differences of view about what the code means. The Treasury
Committee heard from Mike Hughes, a director of the ONS, who commented
on similar concerns expressed by David Rhind. Mr. Hughes
said:
“I have
great sympathy with David Rhind’s remarks about the code at the
moment, because the code is an articulation of good practice rather
than saying, ‘You should be doing this or that,’ so it is
left to individual departments to decide how they choose to interpret
it.”
The most
important way to remedy that problem is, of course, to eliminate
ambiguity, but the Opposition also feel that paragraph (a) of amendment
No. 140, with its reference to the interpretation of the code, would be
a visible signal of the importance of the board as guardian of the code
and the institution with real authority to interpret what it means.
That visible signal of the board’s authority would also be
strengthened by an obligation to report breaches of the code to the
board, and that is contained in paragraph (b) of amendment No.
140.
Turning to the
last technical point before addressing the substantive question of
scope, amendment No. 93 would require the board to report breaches of
the code to Parliament. That is more of a probing amendment than the
others. Throughout the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee have emphasisedthe importance of parliamentary
involvement in scrutinising the new structures. I am sure that the
board will, in any event, refer to breaches in the regular reports that
it is anticipated that it will submit to Parliament. However, it is
important to have the opportunity to assess how the reporting process
would work. We would have to interpret the reporting obligation on the
board in a proportionate way, so that it would not necessarily have to
write to Parliament every week, but this amendment emphasises the
importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the board’s
operation.
3.15
pm
I shall turn to
the main point at issue. We tabled our amendments because we believe
that the board’s role should be consistent across statistics
produced by the Office for National Statistics and Departments. The
Bill gives the new board the obligation to oversee statistics that fall
outside the scope of National Statistics, but it does not give
sufficient power and authority for the board to live up to that
responsibility for oversight. Ministers will retain the power to decide
which statistics from their Departments should go forward for
consideration in terms of becoming national statistics and which should
not, leaving important Government figures out of the new framework.
Effectively, the proposals would give Ministers the power to decide to
what extent the legislation should apply to
them.
There is no good
reason why departmental figures, many of which are vital in assessing
the performance of our public services, should be treated to a lesser
regime. Much of the controversy about statistics over the
past
few years has focused on departmental practices and statistics, not on
ONS ones. As the Royal Statistical Society has pointed out, there is
nothing inherent in the social statistics that come from Departments
that justifies a differential treatment by the new structures to be set
up by the board. On the contrary, such statistics are a highly
important part of political debate today. Our position draws support from
a range of sources. The Greater London authority data management and
analysis group, for example, has
stated:
“We
reject the proposition that statistics which derive from management of
public services are inherently different and cannot meet the
requirements of the National Statistics Code of Practice. If statistics
merit release for public use, especially if they are being used as
performance indicators, then they merit inclusion as National
Statistics.”
The Audit Commission has also
expressed concern,
stating:
“There
is the risk of creating a two-tier system of statistics, which will be
confusing to the general public and other stakeholders. Such a scenario
would only seek to generate low public trust in statistics and
reinforce the perception of political interference in the production
and publication of
statistics.”
Dr.
Barry Leventhal, chairman of the Market Research Society’s
census and geodemographics group agreed that
all
“unnecessary
distinctions should be removed between national statistics and other
official statistics—such distinctions are unsatisfactory and
confusing to
users.”
Professor
Denise Lievesley, chief executive of the health and social care
information centre has
stated:
“It is
the IC’s belief that the code should apply to all official
statistics.”
Sue
Duncan, the Government’s own chief social researcher, has
stated:
“It is
important to recognise that much of the statistical system falls
outside National Statistics and is therefore not subject to the same
quality control, which has the potential to undermine confidence of the
public (who won’t make the distinction between National and
other statistics produced by departments).”
To put that remark in context, I should
make it plain that she did not call for a total abandonment of the
distinction between national and other official
statistics.
Debrah
Harding of the Market Research Society has
said:
“The
agreed definition of national statistics must be consistently and
appropriately applied by government, the ONS, and the research and
statistics community as a whole. Fundamentally the distinction must
incorporate all official statistics including crucial policy areas such
as health, education and crime which are currently produced outside of
the ONS.”
Many have
expressed concern about the role of Ministers in nominating statistics
for the board’s consideration to become part of the National
Statistics system. The British Urban and Regional Information Systems
Association has
stated:
“The
implication is that there will be a list of statistical series that
will be within scope and this will be decided bottom up by Ministers on
a case by case basis. In effect Ministers are being given the job of
deciding whether the legislation should apply to them. In our view, the
Board should have responsibility for safeguarding the public
interest.”
Jonathan Baume, general
secretary of the First Division Association of senior civil servants,
has said:
“The
FDA believes that allowing Ministers alone to decide which statistics
fall within the remit of National Statistics would undermine attempts
to build a clear identity for independent statistics. It would either
lead to confusion and add to lack of public confidence in the
statistics published or it would create a two tier regime for
government statistics which is undesirable and could potentially create
difficulties for the government of the
day.”
Professor Tim Holt
has pointed
out:
“The
proposal that Ministers should decide what statistics are to be covered
by the arrangements is unacceptable. We have seen the effect of this
fragmentation of decision making to individual Ministers under the
current arrangements and it is unsatisfactory. A legal framework will
not command public confidence if Ministers can decide whether or not it
applies to them and activities within their
departments.”
The
Opposition believe that Ministers are unlikely to be keen to nominate
their departmental statistics to go into a new scrutiny system.
According to Dr. Fellegi, the chief statistician of Canada, allowing
Ministers to decide what should or should not be designated a national
statistic
“would
undermine the whole idea of statistical independence...surely the
likelihood that, should they do so, their statistical activity would be
subject to audits is not a very strong incentive to opt
in.”
If this aspect of the
proposal is not changed, Dr. Fellegi feels that the whole
exercise amounts to no more than “tinkering” and
would fail to solve the problem of public trust in statistics. The
academic and statistician, Lord Moser, whose views we have heard a
number of times in Committee, told the Treasury Committee that that
aspect of the Government’s proposals was a basic
flaw.
The RSS has
stated that the extension of National Statistics over the past six
years has been patchy. Many people, including the Committee chaired by
my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, have expressed concerns about
the number of statistics relating to areas such as crime, education,
health, and social security that are outside the scope of National
Statistics. The Statistics Commission has
stated
“We
believe it is essential for the new arrangements to relate to all
official statistics, not just those which are currently the
responsibility of ONS or labelled ‘National Statistics’.
The arguments here are largely obvious: many of the most politically
sensitive and controversial statistics are produced by the major policy
departments of government and based on administrative data crime,
education, health and social security records not statistical surveys.
The new arrangements must recognise this or risk public confidence in
such statistics being reduced rather than
enhanced”.
Alun
Michael:
I am following the hon. Lady’s argument
with interest. Objectivity and trust in statistics are, of course, a
good thing. However, she seems to imply that statistics are an
instrument used by Ministers, who are not interested in the integrity
of them. That is quite wrong, and I am puzzled by why she should take
such an approach. For example, there were no figures on the length of
time it took to get young offenders before a court, until this
Government came in and designed ways of measuring it—we did so
because we had a commitment to halve that time. Statistics were
actually being driven by ministerial interest in delivering a promise
to the public. Will she acknowledge that?
Mrs.
Villiers:
I acknowledge, of course, that Ministers can do
valuable work in relation to statistics, but the whole point of the
Bill is to restrict political interference in relation to statistics
and to take politicians out of the presentation and production of
statistics. What I have been saying is consistent with the goals of the
Bill.
Alun
Michael:
With respect, the hon. Lady is missing my point
entirely. Those preparing statistics had not considered measuring or
recording that sort of information until it was needed to deliver a
better service to the public. That service was delivered, but it was
done because Ministers set a priority to measure something that needed
measuring.
Mrs.
Villiers:
And no doubt that would continue under what I am
proposing. All I am proposing is that Ministers should not have the
right to veto their statistics from going into the regulatory system
that we are trying to set up. The Home Office disclosed to the Treasury
Committee that only 12 per cent. of its statistical outputs were
national statistics. I would be interested to hear whether the
Financial Secretary is prepared to disclose the same figures for other
Departments, because I am sure that that would be of great interest to
the Committee. I have tried, so far without success, to elicit an
answer to that question from different
Departments.
The
Financial Secretary stated on Second Reading that he does not believe
that it would make sense to give the same attention or submit the same
processes to less significant statistics, such as UK TV export figures,
as to key economic indicators such as jobless totals. Surely, if a
statistic is worth producing, it is worth applying to it the principles
of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality that we expect to
be set out in the new statutory code. It is difficult to see the value
of statistics produced without the application of those ethical
principles. One of the difficulties of a two-tier system is that it is
not always possible to predict with certainty which statistics will be
significant and which will not, because certain statistics might
suddenly acquire an unexpectedly high political significance.
To illustrate that statistics
that fall outside the scope of National Statistics are not significant
enough to merit the application of the code of practice, the Minister
referred to the egg bulletin. However, data relating to eggs can
certainly be significant—they were of career-killing importance
for Edwina Currie back in the 1980s. Within a day or so of the Minister
mentioning that issue on the day of the Queen’s Speech, figures
on egg imports issued by the Food Standards Agency hit the headlines,
when it was disclosed that about one box out of every 30 imported into
the UK tested positive for
salmonella.
On Second
Reading, some other specific examples were discussed of statistics that
fall outside the scope of the National Statistics system. We discussed
the fact that quarterly waiting lists are designated as national
statistics, but monthly waiting lists are not. However, as the list set
out in the Treasury Committee report shows, there are many other
sensitive and significant figures that are outside the scope of
National Statistics. To take just a few examples, they include
statistics on race and the criminal justice system, women and the
criminal justice system, local sentencing patterns in magistrates
courts, the end-of-the-month prison population count, quarterly figures
on total time spent in accident and emergency from arrival to
admission, discharge or transfer and waiting for emergency admission,
quarterly waiting times for suspected cancer patients, quarterly
figures for cancelled operations, annual figures on bed availability
and occupancy, benefit expenditure tables, quarterly figures for
council house sales in England, collection figures for council tax and
non-domestic rates in England, creative industry economic estimates,
business competitiveness indicators, the development of oil and gas
resources in the UK, energy and its impact on the environment and
society, survival rates for businesses still registered for VAT after
one and three years, annual progress reports on the UK fuel poverty
strategy, women’s attitudes to combining paid work and family
life, the quarterly report of NHS stop smoking services in England,
armed forces medical discharges, households below average income in
Northern Ireland, alcohol-related health and mortality, cancer audits
and cancer waiting times in Scotland, absenteeism from primary schools
in Wales, the admission of patients to health facilities including
detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983, cancer survival,
cervical screening, exclusions from
schools—
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Lady has an exhaustive list,
which is getting tiring. I would have thought that her point had been
made.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I appreciate the patience of the Committee. I
was going to refer to only two more statistics, namely those on NHS
beds and NHS dentists. All those statistics would fall outwith the full
rigour of the proposed reform, since none are designated as national
statistics. We think that many of them cover issues of significance and
concern to people and policy makers across the country, and we believe
that they are important enough to be subject to the code of practice on
impartiality, objectivity and integrity. That is why we appeal to the
Government to support our
amendments.
Mr.
Fallon:
I want briefly to discuss amendmentNo.
19. The reason why I need to speak only brieflyis that it is,
of course, very similar to amendmentNo. 91—my hon.
Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet came up with the amendment by a
process of competitive drafting, which I commend to the Minister and
his officials. The problem is fairly simple and my hon. Friend has
alluded to it already. We have a code, but it is not enforceable. That
is a difficulty with the existing code and, given that we are putting
it on a statutory basis, it will be a missed opportunity if we continue
to pursue the concept of a code of practice, but do not say that
anybody has to be bound by
it.
3.30
pm
It is also
important for there to be a duty to consult on the interpretation of
the code so that potential or confirmed breaches can be identified. As
the code stands, that will be left to the good offices of the board,
which will be left to discover breaches for itself unless there is a
whistleblower at work. That duty would be
useful, but I have no preference for either amendment No. 19 or
amendment No. 91. Perhaps the drafting of the latter is a little more
elegant than my amendment No. 19, but that is the benefit of
competitive drafting. Either way, I hope that the Minister will accept
the point that, if there is to be a code, it should be
enforceable.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
We share the concerns about the two-tier
statistics system that the Bill will entrench and the fact that the
code will not be binding. We do not know what resources, if any, will
be available to the board if it is not convinced that the code has been
complied with.
On the
point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about important
statistics that are not currently national statistics, the problem is
that we already have a two-tier system. For information such as that on
dentists that is not collected locally, will there need to be a brand
new national statistic? What mechanism does the Financial Secretary
envisage for converting an official statistic that is not collected in
a uniform way nationally into a national statistic if a Minister
believes that it should be given that
importance?
Alun
Michael:
I can assure you, Mr. Olner, that I
shall be brief and not read extracts from the London telephone
directory. I hope that I shall again have the sympathy and
encouragement of my hon. Friend the Financial
Secretary.
Amendment
No. 195 would insert a requirement
stating:
“In
preparing the Code the Board shall have regard to the usefulness of
National Statistics at a local level and the importance of
coterminosity of raw
data.”
Both parts of the
amendment are important. The usefulness of national statistics is
manifest, and in my intervention on the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
I made the point that those who use statistics to inform public policy
and the public benefit sometimes need to point out that statistics
collected for mere academic purposes do not necessarily answer the
questions that need to be answered. It is important that the code
should address that.
The coterminosity of raw data is
different from all the other considerations on how data are collated,
because it is absolutely basic. If raw data are consistently collected
at the most local level possible they can then be aggregated, like
blocks of Lego, for any combination of areas as required by public
bodies, non-governmental organisations or others seeking to develop
policy and deliver services. They can be aggregated at ward, local
authority, health authority or police area level. I could give more
examples, but the point is clear. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend
the Financial Secretary will explicitly support the essential nature of
collecting raw data at the most local level possible and state it as
his expectation. I would prefer it to be stated in the Bill, because it
is such a basic point, but I would at least like an
assurance.
Amendment
No. 196 suggests
that
“representatives with
experience of using statistics to identify public need or improve
service delivery, including representatives from local government and
non-governmental organisations”
should be included. I suggest to my hon.
Friend that he almost proposed such an amendment when he said that that
would be an essential way of proceeding in his response to me in an
earlier debate. Again, it is essential that there should be a reminder
in the Bill, because it is easy to forget about the local level,
especially for those in academic institutions who consider things at
the broader level. I hope that my hon. Friend will either be positive
in his response or accept my amendments. Either way, our expectations
for the future will be explicit.
Mr.
Gauke:
I shall briefly speak in support of the amendments
in the name of my hon. Friends, and draw to the Committee’s
attention two pieces of evidence that were given to the Treasury
Sub-Committee on the very point that we are discussing.
The first point, from Lord
Moser, was that by having a code that applies to national statistics
but not to official statistics, the Bill will have a greater impact on
the ONS part of the current statistics arrangements, which is in least
need of reform. Secondly, the chief statistician of Canada, whose
evidence was referred to in our earlier sitting today, argued that the
public are unlikely to distinguish between statistics that originate
from the ONS and those from other Departments. The same point can be
made with regard to national statistics and official statistics. The
distinction is not likely to be appreciated and understood by the
public at large, for entirely understandable reasons.
It was for those reasons that
the Treasury Sub-Committee expressed concerns in its report about the
proposed approach. The concerns that my hon. Friends have raised are
therefore somewhat widespread, particularly since the decisions as to
what will be national statistics and what will be official statistics
will be made by Ministers, not by the independent statistics
board.
John
Healey:
The clause places a statutory duty on the board to
prepare, adopt and publish a code of practice for national statistics.
That is an idea that was widely supported during our public
consultation, especially by many of the professional groups. The code
of practice is the tool that the board will use to undertake its
assessment of candidate national statistics, as set out in clauses 12
to 15.
However, we
also expect the code to be one of the board’s main vehicles to
promulgate the standards and definitions that it is required under
clause 9 to produce and promote across all official statistics. I
stress the importance of that point, which has perhaps not been clear
before, and about which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has been
worried. It is important to note that, although the code’s
formal status is as a statement of practice against which national
statistics or candidate national statistics will be assessed, we expect
the board to promote it as a code of good practice across all official
statistics.
Statistics
that are produced and published by the Government clearly differ in
importance. Few would seriously contest the importance of unemployment
statistics for a wide variety of purposes and users.
Others might regard the statistics on the number of television licences
that a Department holds, for instance, as less important. Few would
seriously argue that those data—in other words, official
statistical data—should be treated in the same way or with the
same status as the jobless figures, which are national
statistics. An active
assessment programme will therefore be necessary. Such a programme will
necessarily bring with it certain resource implications for national
statistics, in funding the process, in placing a compliance burden on
those assessed and in occupying the concern and attention of the
statistics board. Surely it is right that we apply that assessment to
the central set of national statistics—the key statistics that
the Government, business and the public rely on for an accurate,
up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK. There
are about 1,300 national statistics. For the Committee’s
benefit, I do not propose to read out the entire
list.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I do not propose to repeat that list. Are
statistics in Wales on, for example, exclusions from schools or
cervical screening not important enough to be treated with integrity
and
impartiality?
John
Healey:
I think that the hon. Lady did not hear what I
said. The standards of integrity and impartiality of production and
release that are likely to be captured in the code of practice that the
statistics board draws up to assess national statistics against will be
the same standards that we expect the board to promote for the
production and handling of all official statistics. The important
thing, which I believe the hon. Lady will have heard me say before, is
that we are setting out in the Bill a framework that can evolve in the
light of experience. We are starting with the central list of about
1,300 established national statistics, but the definition and list of
national statistics clearly can and will evolve in the
future.
Mr.
Gauke:
I take the Financial Secretary’s point that
the statistics board will have a power to promote the code with regard
to official statistics. What powers will the statistics board have to
enforce the code with regard to official
statistics?
John
Healey:
My point is precisely that the main attention, the
important resources and the important expertise of the statistics board
in its assessment, audit and compliance function should be directed
principally at the assessment and approval—the auditing, if one
likes—of the national statistics that form our central set of
statistics. Let me reassure hon. Members that the framework is likely
to evolve. It seems to me that under the process there will be a strong
incentive for Ministers to look actively at submitting additional
departmental statistics for approval as national statistics where they
are central to the policy functions or the delivery of the programmes
for which that Department and those Ministers are responsible. I would
expect the board, as part of its statutory duty under the Bill, to
comment on the comprehensiveness and coverage of official statistics
and to comment also on any official statistics that it believes should
be national statistics.
Amendment No. 140 would change
the title of the code of practice from “National” to
“official”. A consequence of what I hope I have been able
clearly to set out before the Committee today is that that change in
itself would make no material impact on the standards of good
statistical practice that we expect. We expect the code to be a model
of good practice for official statistics, and we expect the board to
promote it as such. The board is to monitor the production and
publication of official statistics and comment on concerns about the
quality and good practice in relation to all official
statistics.
Amendments
Nos. 91 and 19, supported by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, would
place a requirement on all Departments that produce official statistics
to be bound by the code and report any breach of the code to the board.
I do not believe that the reporting of breaches is a matter that should
be set out in legislation. The board, working, as it becomes
established, with all the interest groups and stakeholders, will
develop mechanisms for engaging in respect of the interpretation and
application of the code and reporting breaches to it. Those may well be
set out in the code itself. For example, under clause 9 the board can
provide advice and guidance to persons responsible for official
statistics in this
context.
3.45
pm
Amendment No. 93
would require the board to lay before Parliament a report on any breach
that it has investigated. Under the Bill, the board is
empoweredto lay any such report or assessment of sufficient
importance before this House or the devolved Administrations, or to
report it publicly. As with our discussions on clause 8 and the
reporting of concerns, it is fundamentally better to leave it to the
independent board’s judgment to respond proportionately than to
impose obligations on
it.
I hope that I have
been able to satisfy the hon. Members who tabled the amendments that
the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will not press the lead one and
that other amendments will not be
moved.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I shall not press the amendment owing to the
lateness of the hour and because we hope to return to this important
issue on Report. We welcome the Financial Secretary’s acceptance
of the fact that the code will apply across Departments, but he failed
to address the problem of
enforcement.
John
Healey:
The code is relevant not just across Departments,
but to all official statistics. Furthermore, the board’s
assessment and approval functions relating to national statistics must
be conducted according to that
code.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I appreciate that clarification. As I said, I
shall not press the amendment, but hope to return to it on
Report.
The Financial
Secretary is concerned about the problems that could arise from vesting
the board with enforcement powers over Departments that breach the code
and stated that some statistics are less significant than others and
should not be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. He might be
concerned about the
burden that would be placed on statisticians, but surely we can trust
the board to take a proportionate approach to the statistics and their
significance. After all, under clause 26 it is obliged to minimise the
burdens that it imposes on those affected by its activities. I feel
that the Financial Secretary has not produced a reason why certain
statistics should be subjected to a lesser regime, but as I said I
welcome his acceptance of the code’s impact across
Departments.
John
Healey:
Let us compare my two examples of statistics held
by particular Departments—on unemployment and television
licences. Would the hon. Lady not accept that they should be treated
differently?
Mrs.
Villiers:
They should both be treated with impartiality
and honesty, and should be accurate. Good practice should apply to
both.
I am grateful to
the Financial Secretary, however, for the clarification that he has
given and look forward to further discussion of the matter at a later
stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I beg to move amendment No. 141, in
clause 10, page 5, line 8, at
end insert
‘taking
account of the principles set out in the European Statistics Code of
Practice and the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official
Statistics and other international codes or agreements which the Board
considers to be
appropriate.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 195, in
clause 10, page 5, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(2A) In
preparing the Code the Board shall have regard to the usefulness of
National Statistics at a local level and the importance of
coterminosity of raw
data.’.
No.
196, in
clause 10, page 5, line 14, at
end insert—
‘(ca)
representatives with experience of using statistics to identify public
need or improve service delivery, including representatives from local
government and non-government organisations,
and’.
No.
96, in
clause 17, page 8, line 12, at
end insert—
‘(6) The Board
shall publish the Code within 12 months of being
established.’.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted
to hear that I shall be
brief.
Amendment No.
141 is self-explanatory. In drafting the code, the board should have
regard to the European statistics code of practice, the United Nations
fundamental principles of official statistics and other international
agreements. Both those documents contain a number of very useful
principles that could inform the drafting of the board’s code.
They are consistent with the line taken by both sides of the House on
the importance of objectivity and of focusing on user needs—a
matter raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
They also focus on the importance of identifying errors in published
statistics and correcting them as early as possible; they emphasise
objectivity, transparency and user consultation. Importantly, they also
emphasise
equal access to statistical releases and ensuring that there are clearly
defined rules to govern pre-release, when that is allowed. In drafting
the final code, the board would do well to consider the clear approach
to release practices, particularly shown in the European
code. To conclude, the
UN fundamental principlesof official statistics focus on the
professional consideration, scientific principles and professional
ethics on the methods of procedures for collection, processing, storage
and presentation of statistical data. They provide a useful source of
information and international best practice on which the board would do
well to rely. That is why I tabled the
amendment.
Amendment
No. 96 is self-explanatory. It requires the board to publish the code
within 12 months of its being established. We all agree that the Bill
is important; it would make sense to get the code up and running as
soon as possible. I am grateful to the Committee for its
patience.
John
Healey:
This is a useful and, I hope, probing amendment
from the hon. Lady. We expect the board to draw on the relevant
guidance and principles contained in various documents such as the code
of practice for national statistics, the European statistics code of
practice and the United Nations fundamental principles of official
statistics. I do not want to get into another long list. However, we
would also expect the board to consider the commendable work of the
Statistics Commission, which recently published its own proposals on a
revised code of practice. However, it is unnecessary and potentially
unhelpful to place
statutory obligations on the board to do so. I hope that my
clarifications have convinced the hon. Lady not to press her
amendment.
My right
hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tabled amendments
Nos. 195 and 196. I fully expect the board to take account of the
considerations that he sets out in amendment No. 195. I understand, as
he does, the importance of good local-level data—for use
locally, but also as a building block for understanding what may be
going on at the regional and national levels.
As we discussed, specifying in
the Bill particular statistical uses or considerations of which the
board must take account in drawing up the code would be unnecessarily
inflexible. I expect the board to consult those with the experience and
user interest set out in amendment No. 196, but it is not necessary to
stipulate that in the Bill. My right hon. Friend welcomed my earlier
clarification that under clause 32, the board would have the power to
establish advisory committees. Those would allow it to consult
individuals with the expertise on which my right hon. Friend is
concerned to see it
draw.
Given my
comments, I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit not to press the
amendment to a
Division.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I do not wish to press amendmentNo.
141. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Kevin
Brennan.]
Adjourned
accordingly at six minutes to Four o'clock till Tuesday 23 January at
half-past Ten
o'clock.
| 
