Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert— ““(d) one person who is appointed by the Cabinet Office after consulting the Local Government Association.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, I ventured three amendments. I have pared those down to one, and in coming forward with it I have recognised that in its previous form it reached too far. I am now proposing simply that before one of the members of the board is appointed, the Cabinet Office should consult the Local Government Association. In making that amendment, I am glad to say thatI am not creating any precedent for such communication. The amendment follows exactly the form of the provision already in the Bill about consultation over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It reflects the need to see that appropriate statistical information is available for democratically elected bodies which have major responsibilities for public money. In the case of the local authorities in England, we are talking about 26 per cent of public expenditure, amounting to £100 billion a year. If healthcare and some other public services were added, that figure would be increased. There may be those who think that if the Local Government Association is to be consulted on behalf of local authorities, what about others? I am far from being against the principle of consultation—indeed, it would be an advantage to consult industry, commerce and academia. However, that is not to say that people who are appointed after consultation with Welsh, Scottish, Irish or local government interests are ignorant of other matters. They may be very well informed. Nor would the amendment preclude the Government appointing more than the minimum number of members provided for in the Bill. I single out local authorities because they are democratically elected and, through their membership, have a good understanding of the needs of other sectors of activity because of their very wide statutory responsibilities. Finally, let me be clear that I am not proposing that the board should collect information every five minutes on any great new scale to provide information for local authorities. Nor am I proposing a specific duty on the board. The decision on what is appropriate and practical to collect will remain with the board, without any proposed amendment of its responsibilities, functions or duties. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that there is somebody on the board who, in the light of consultations with the LGA, has considerable knowledge of the needs for information below national level in England to help ensure that the £100 billion for whose expenditure local authorities are responsible is spent in a joined-up way to good effect on the basis of reasonably up-to-date information. To illustrate what is potentially available from such a modest amendment, a 1 per cent improvement in the effectiveness of the way in which local authorities spend money would be worth £1 billion. An improvement of 0.1 per cent would be worth £100 million. I beg to move.