Statistics and Registration Service Bill

My Lords, in seeking to reassure the noble Viscount on that last point, I wish to avoid going into too much detail on the annual report which the board has to make. That is the burden of Amendment No. 23, which I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw. To what extent should we prescribe in legislation specific aspects of the board’s activity? The noble Lord quite rightly asked why we should not have a light touch. I cannot think of a heavier touch than prescribing in considerable detail in legislation exactly what the board must do. As I have emphasised in the past, our purpose is to create an independent board. It seems a little odd, then, that we should write into the statute detailed, specific information that the board should include in its annual report beyond what we already have. The board will recognise its responsibility—it is publicly accountable. It knows what it will have to identify in broad terms to the wider public and to Parliament. What should be resisted is excessive prescription in these terms, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, enjoined me to do. A major part of the board’s activities will be monitoring the quality and comprehensiveness of, and good practice in, official statistics underthe wide-ranging powers that it already has under Clause 8. Under them, it can report on matters of funding and resources. In monitoring and reporting on the quality and comprehensiveness of, and good practice in, statistics, the board will be able to comment on all issues that it considers help determine quality and comprehensiveness. Clearly, financial and staff resources will often be relevant factors, and the board will comment on them. If the board was of the view that statistical quality had been badly affected by insufficient resources being devoted to the production of certain statistics, it could comment publicly to that effect. I assume that it would do so as it is clearly its role. I make it clear that we would expect Parliament also to play a full part in examining the resources of the board and others who produce official statistics, including identifying any concerns that it may have, and holding to account those responsible for making decisions on the allocation of resources. The Bill therefore places on the board obligations with regard to resources and its powers and we do not need further definition. Grouped with the noble Baroness’s Amendment No. 23 is Amendment No. 24 of my noble friend Lord Lea. I recognise that the location of the ONS has been a matter of some controversy and that this House, the other place and those elsewhere have concerns about the impact on staff, the quality of statistics and the links between statisticians and users of statistics in London. Let us recognise that the ONS is not unique in relocating work. Relocation is a cross-government initiative intended to move 20,000 jobs outside of the south-east. The vast majority of Members who speak in this House, and certainly of those who speak in the other place, are generally of the view that relocation is a good idea in broad terms to reduce overheating in the south-east, to spread jobs more widely in the country and to promote a degree of regional policy, but as soon as any particular case emerges, it is argued that the department and function concerned ought not to move. This move has been going on for a considerable time. We are not in the early stages, but more than halfway through. I can confirm my noble friend’s statistics: there are now 1,200 staff of the ONS in Newport and about 600 in London. That is just about right. He was right also that the numbers going to Newport will increase and that the numbers remaining in London will decrease. I can confirm to him that about 50 to 100 staff will remain in London in 2010. They will be there for essential operational need. As he emphasised, it is expected that national accounts staff are likely to form the majority of London-based staff in 2010 because of the significance of their role, which he described to the House. Of course, he is right that the board can at any point make the case for retaining more staff in London. If it feels that there is an essential operational need for that, that will be its decision. On the question in broad terms of whether the board in future could decide where it should be located as a whole, other factors come into play. The board needs to identify where it can best achieve the objectives that the Government have set before it, but it would be passing belief if it were suggested that the Government, Parliament or this House should give any government body the inalienable right to decide exactly where it would locate itself, with Parliament and the British taxpayer voting the necessary resources. That is not acceptable; it could not be, otherwise we would have every non-governmental public body located somewhere in Whitehall. Certainly, they would be located pretty close to London, because they would be able to put forward two propositions: first, quite rightly, that they and their contribution to the life of the nation and public policy are highly significant—and in every case they would be right that their roles were significant, or they would not exist for the functions that they had. Secondly, it is always the case that the closer you can get to the Prime Minister, the greater your influence is likely to be. What an excellent argument for a geographical location as close to Downing Street as possible. Could we conceivably run government policy on the proposition that a non-governmental public body could locate itself wherever it liked and that Parliament would be obliged to provide the resources? Of course not. I can tell my noble friend that if the board identifies that its functions can be more effectively pursued in another location, of course it can make its case. There are proper procedures in which boards make their case with regard to the location of their functions. It is then for the Chief Secretary to analyse each case and for public resources to be brought into play according to the decisions of Parliament on their allocation. That is an entirely proper function. We could not possibly put into a particular piece of legislation a guarantee that a board in future could locate itself wherever it chose. I recognise my noble friend’s concern about the procedures with regard to the transfer. We are at the midpoint of that transition; it is a programme that has been going for several years and has three more years to run until 2010. This is a difficult phase for the Office for National Statistics. It is important that the office maintains its standards, and of course it will endeavour to do so. If it is the case that an early transfer of certain staff should not be effected because it causes anxiety among very significant consumers of statistics, the programme may be moderated in those terms. In broad terms, the Office for National Statistics is following a pattern that several other bodies and departments of government have followed with regard to relocation. Of course, relocation is never easy, but we should consider that for the staff, relocation to a place such as South Wales significantly decreases their housing costs and therefore potentially enhances their living standards. We are guaranteed that we can retain staff. We have a higher staff retainment level at Newport at present than we do in London. We should not underestimate the mobility of graduates; the extent to which our university provision right across the United Kingdom is such that we can guarantee the flow of highly qualified manpower in Newport. I say to my noble friend that I recognise his anxieties. This is a difficult time, as it is mid-point in the move. He will recognise, however, that the Government cannot accept in legislation an amendment that effectively would give to the Office for National Statistics a position that is not vouchsafed for any other government body; nor is it conceivable that any Government at any future time would do so. I hope that he will recognise therefore that he has brought to the attention of the House the necessity for very effective action regarding the transfer, but I hope that having raised the issue he will not move his amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.