Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 24, page 10, line 12, at end insert— ““( ) The report under subsection (1) must contain either— (a) a statement that the Board considers that the resources available to the Board and any others who produce or publish statistics have been adequate during that year, or (b) an analysis of the extent to which the Board considers that resources have not been adequate together with the actions that it intends to take.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, which we support. I thank the noble Lord for agreeing to group his amendment with mine so that we can debate the two issues together, as I believe that that is convenient for your Lordships’ House. My amendment would merely add to the annual report requirement in Clause 24 a statement that the resources available to the board and others who produce statistics have been adequate. If they have not been adequate, the board would have to give an analysis of the situation. Most of us have been concerned about the short-term and long-term impact of resources on the quality of statistics. I have not been convinced by the talk of five-year resource settlements, because they do not address the adequacy of resources. If resources are inadequate in year one, being told that they are available at that level for four more years is absolutely no comfort. My amendment would cover the resources not only of the board but of departments. It is obvious that quality statistics that comply with the code of practice cannot be produced on the cheap. Given the cost-cutting that is being forced on departments under the Comprehensive Spending Review, it would not be surprising if corners were cut. My amendment would allow the board to keep an oversight on this and, importantly, to report publicly if problems emerged. Adequate resources are essential if the board is to have genuine independence and freedom of action. Public reporting is a necessary counterweight against the pressures that will be put on the board and others who produce statistics to cut costs, thereby impairing quality. This is the link between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lea. His amendment is about a very specific issue of independence and freedom. The board must be able to locate its activities where it considers best. Normally, such an amendment would be regarded as very odd, but those who have been following the Bill or the affairs of the Office for National Statistics will know that there is a very real problem with the current relocation to Newport. The Government have not even acknowledged the disastrous effect that the move is having on the retention of key staff; yet we know that some of the key statistical series are at risk because, inter alia, the Bank of England has warned us of that. It may well be too late to turn the clock back on Newport, but the question is whether the board is allowed to establish a larger London presence than has been planned, or whether the Treasury can use the weapon of a Lyons type of review again to force some other form of relocation. The amendments are about the freedoms of the board and its independent decision making. We heard throughout Committee that the board was to be given responsibilities for statistics and would not be micromanaged by the Treasury or anyone else. We never quite believed that, but the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, gives the Government a wonderful opportunity to state that one aspect of operational freedom in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will grasp it. I beg to move.