Statistics and Registration Service Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, although I do not think that the issue has been anything except clear from the Government’s point of view. If I have not expressed it with sufficient clarity, the fault certainly lies with me, and I will be as clear on it as I possibly can today. Far from there being a muddle, there has been a clear position on the code for statistics, which I want to emphasise today. The title, ““code of practice for statistics””, expresses succinctly exactly what the code is, and I do not see a case for change. I see a case for my clarifying and reassuring noble Lords about the anxieties to which they have given voice, and I will seek to do that. I do not think that the Bill needs amending because I do not think that there is anything between us in the arguments put forward on what is desirable in the legislation. I want to make it clear that the Government are bent on ensuring exactly the clear terms that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have enjoined on me. As we discussed on Report last week, the code will be applied across official statistics, but it will have a particular role for national statistics. That is the understood position about how the code will work. We discussed it at great length last week and of course that is the position in the legislation. The particular role for national statistics is that this is a code against which the board will assess statistics to determine their compliance and whether to award national statistics status. We all know that about 1,300 statistics would be likely to fall within this framework. When new statistics are produced or when it is desirable that current statistics are brought within the framework of national statistics, they must be in full compliance with the code and be judged by the board to be up to the standard of national statistics status. Calling the code, as the amendment suggests, the ““code for official statistics”” may be confusing and could imply that it refers only to those official statistics and not to the subset of statistics that are national statistics—the ones for which we have a specific category. It was always the Government’s intention that the code should have application to both categories: national statistics with their particular appliance of thecode—withdrawal of that status would be the ultimate sanction if statistics fell below standards—and official statistics. Questions were addressed about whether the code would have application beyond government. Clearly, the board does not have any jurisdiction beyond the official statistics boundary and I do not think that I suggested that it did last week on Report. It does not apply to the commercial world, the world of charitable organisations, the universities or any other category. However, there is a proper expectation that a code produced by the United Kingdom’s pre-eminent statistical authority will have significance beyond government and the scope of official statistics. Others, such as those in local government or even commercial organisations, would be free to use the code as a guide for the production and publication of statistical outputs if they wished. For these reasons, the Government feel that the amendments would blunt the edge of the code’s clear, concise and appropriate title. Of course, the code applies to official statistics, especially national statistics, but others may aspire to it in the quality of work that they do. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated that that may not be an aspiration for organisations carrying out certain kinds of surveys because they cannot match the official surveys of government. That is fully understood. No one is suggesting that the code has jurisdiction over unofficial statistics. It is merely an exemplar of what can and should be achieved in the production of statistics at the most rigorous levels, and it may be a useful guide for those outside its framework. The legislation does not go beyond official statistics. The noble Lord asked about consultation. We consulted very widely on the Bill, as he will recognise. Indeed, we would not have been able to produce the Bill without the benefit of such consultation. We did not consult commercial organisations that produce statistics outside the public realm because we never intended to legislate—and have not legislated—for statistics outside official statistics. What I said last week seems to have given rise to uncertainty in the House about the extent to which the code might obtain outside official statistics. It does not pertain to those statistics. I was merely indicating that it might be a reference point for quality and rigour. I hope that that is clear and that consultation was never really an issue. The noble Lord also asked about the code of practice in relation to official statistics. We have made the position absolutely clear. The code of practice applies to official statistics, but the sanction that it contains of withdrawing national statistics status applies only to a very limited number of statistics—the most important ones that meet the full rigour of the test of the code. We are all too well aware that the boundaries of national statistics will fluctuate over time; some statistics may move in and others may move out. That will be at the board’s discretion. The boundaries are porous under the terms, provided that the criteria are met. We have made it quite clear that national statistics have a particular status under the code and that official statistics embrace national statistics as well as a wide range of statistics that go beyond them. I resist the amendment because the Bill is absolutely clear about the code of practice governing statistics. I have sought to respond to the noble Lord’s anxieties, which arose from our last debate; I do not think that he had them before. In so far as I helped to generate them, I am glad of the opportunity to clarify the matter. The Government have always been clear about the position with regard to the code. I hope that I have clarified that further in answer to the noble Lord’s questions and that he and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate will accept that the amendments do not advance the position in any way, shape or form. The code for statistics is in the Bill, which I seek to defend. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.