UK Parliament / Open data

Statistics and Registration Service Bill

My Lords, in the original Bill, there were two defects. The first was that the concept of national statistics and the code of practice were made coterminous, so if a series was not in national statistics—because it either had never been there or had been de-designated—it was outside the code, including provisions such as confidentiality. That made no sense, and I welcome the separation of the two concepts. I rather support those who prefer ““code of official statistics””; it makes more sense and is more accurate. In the stages that remain, I hope that that can somehow be introduced. The second defect was that there was a voluntary system in which the right of initiative as to whether something had the state of national statistics lay entirely with Ministers. If something was outside that state and other people thought that it should be inside, there was very little that could be done about it. Now there is a mechanism that enables the board to express its dissatisfaction, so that something that should be in the higher tier of quality could be brought into it. I agree that it is a rather cumbersome mechanism, but it would not work exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggests. If the board is dissatisfied with something, it will investigate it, and its case as to why something should be placed into the higher tier will be made on the basis of some research. I welcome the reconstruction of the amendments. I am not sure that I would have done it exactly in this way, as I would have placed a duty on the board to assess the quality of statistics, and to have a rolling programme to do so on which it would decide. I do not think that it is necessary to have the sharp distinction, or that the de-designation mechanism will ever work. If something is important enough to be in national statistics, such as crime statistics, no one will ever say, ““We will put this into a lower category””. The pressure will be to improve it and retain its status. Nevertheless, where we are left is a great deal better than where we started.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c41-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top