Statistics and Registration Service Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lordfor bringing forward this amendment. At Second Reading and in Committee last week I raised the issue which he has raised in greater detail today. Since last week I have had a chance to read for the first time the FDA evidence to the Treasury Select Committee. That is the most damning document one could read of a decision to relocate any department anywhere in the UK given that one is talking about the FDA. It is not the miners’ union led by Arthur Scargill. One has to take what it says extremely seriously. As a matter of principle, we on these Benches have been great supporters of relocation. Indeed, my noble friend in another place, Dr Cable, has argued thatthe whole Treasury should move to Liverpool—a suggestion of which the Treasury has not approved with the alacrity with which it is forcing people from ONS to go down to south Wales. But there comes a point where, however much one might favour the principle of relocation, the cost and benefits weigh the other way. It seems to me that in respect of certain of the functions of the ONS, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, explained, the argument for moving to Newport has not been made. Last week I referred to information which had been passed to me from someone who currently works for the ONS. It was claimed that, as of a fortnight ago, of the division which produces the RPI and the CPI—it has a staff of 35—not one of them had chosen to relocate to Newport and that there were serious risks to the production of those statistics over the coming months. Does the Minister recognise those figures and that danger? What action will the Treasury take if it believes that there is a serious risk that major statistical series will be disrupted if the move, as currently planned, goes ahead? As regards the role and powers of the board, if the amendment were passed, to reverse the changes, I fear that that could be extremely difficult unless it were possible to relocate back at a cost saving. As wehave heard from the Minister, a five-year financial settlement has been agreed with the ONS which is predicated on the move to Newport being successfully concluded, with the reductions in costs that that brings with it. While I support the amendment and the sentiments underlying it, unless the Minister is about to tell me that the settlement can be re-opened, I have some doubts that it is a reversible situation.