Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 35: 35: Clause 7, page 4, line 19, at end insert ““and of ensuring high levels of public trust in official statistics”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 114. These amendments concern trust in statistics. At Second Reading, several noble Lords referred to the quite awful figures from the 2005 survey organised by the ONS. Only 37 per cent of people believe that statistics are generally accurate and only 17 per cent believe that they are produced without political interference. In 2005, the Statistics Commission carried out research into attitudes to official statistics. It reported: "““There is a strong feeling... that action needs to be taken to increase trust in, and the credibility of, official statistics””." The Royal Statistical Society, in its comments on the Bill circulated to noble Lords, stated that, "““for several decades now, a lack of trust due to a wide perception of political interference has devalued and undermined official statistics to an extent not seen elsewhere. We believe that trust in official statistics and public confidence in the system that produces them is fundamental to the Government's objectives for the Bill and it should be judged by whether it addresses these””." As I made clear at Second Reading and in my opening remarks on Amendment No. 1, we shall judge the Bill by whether it is the best way in which to achieve the highest degree of public trust in statistics. I am not sure that the Government have the same approach. I read very carefully the remarks of the Minister at Second Reading, both his opening remarks and winding-up speech, and he never once used the word ““trust””. It was as if his briefing notes from the Bill team had marked in capital letters in the file, ““DO NOT USE THE WORD TRUST””. In the final paragraph of the Minister’s opening speech at Second Reading, he said: "““The Bill is a step forward in what will be a major and evolving programme of reform. It holds out the possibility of substantially improving the quality of and confidence in government statistics””.—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1449.]" I put it to the Committee that if that represents the Government’s ambition for this Bill, it is not good enough. Leaving aside the vacuous and vague reference to, "““a major and evolving programme of reform””," the Minister talked about the possibility of improvement—not the absolute aim and commitment to achieving high levels of equality and confidence. Of course, he avoided the ““t”” word. I have heard the Minister use the word ““trust”” today, which may be an encouraging sign, but when he comes to reply to the amendment will he say whether the Government genuinely have public trust at the heart of their aspirations for the new statistical arrangements, or is this word no longer allowed to be used in connection with them? Whatever the Government think, we believe that the aim of gaining high levels of public trust should be at the heart of the Bill. Amendment No. 35 would amend Clause 7, which sets out the objective of the board, which is currently expressed as, "““promoting and safeguarding the production … of official statistics that serve the public good””." We have no problem with that. Indeed, the reference to public good arose out of an amendment tabled by my honourable friend Mr Michael Fallon in Committee in another place. However, we believe that it should go further and say that the objective is also, "““ensuring high levels of public trust in official statistics””." I am sure that there is an argument that official statistics do not serve the public good if they do not carry high levels of public trust, but the public good can be seen in a narrower sense of serving those charged with making public policy. The issue of trust is a wider one of gaining the support of the public for the statistics which will underpin the Government’s policies and hence gaining the support of the public for the policies themselves. Amendment No. 48 positively requires the board to carry out research to determine the level of public trust. I am sure that I was not alone in being shocked at the findings of the ONS’s research. We need that research undertaken regularly and published, as the amendment also requires, so that we always keep in public view the issue of trust. We all, I am sure, earnestly hope that the headlines will one day be so boring that the newspapers will shun them, and““99 per cent believe that official statistics are totally trustworthy”” will get no space in the media. But we are a long way from that, which is why we should keep the research going. Lastly, Amendment No. 114 amends Clause 25 of the Bill so that the board’s annual report must deal with the issue of public trust. We should never be shy of stating the obvious in legislation. I beg to move.