Statistics and Registration Service Bill

Brooks Newmark opposes the Government position allowing Ministers to control whether they have pre-release access to statistics as such arrangements erode perceived independence of Government statistics.

Mr. Newmark: I, too, welcome the Minister to her new position. I also invite her, however, to take a new position on ministerial pre-release access.

The Minister will be well aware that when the Treasury Sub-Committee, on which she and I sat, considered the independence of statistics last year, our guiding principle and second recommendation was:

"Regardless of the detail of the Government's final proposals, we consider it essential that the Government ensures that its proposals secure both sufficient independence and sufficient perceived independence in the statistical system."

For the record at least, I note that she put her name to that recommendation, and to the whole report, notwithstanding her long, rambling excuse as to why she signed up to it but did not attend half the meetings.

I remind the Minister, however, that the then Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) told the Committee during evidence that he

"would certainly accept that the pre-release arrangements contribute to the perception of interference in statistics."

He also said:

"Part of the drive to legislate now to entrench the independence is to deal with some of the problems that are still there in perception."

Actual independence and perceived independence are intimately connected, and the Government's rejection of the Lords amendments on pre-release strikes a blow against both.

There are concrete examples of abuse from the Statistics Commission. Whether we consider the leak of unemployment figures to the "Today" programme, or the former Prime Minister letting them slip while at a TUC conference, pre-release has certainly had problems. The perception of abuse, however, is more important, as has been acknowledged by the Phillis review and many other commentators since. Lord Moser, about whom we have heard much today and whose name was on the amendments, said that the Government's approach to the issue was "astonishing". He said:

"No other single change would send a clearer signal to the public and users than this."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1076.]

Mr. Gummer: The Government's only argument in defence of their position is that things have always been like this. Is not it odd to find a Labour Government saying that they are doing something because tradition demands it? Why do not they apply that argument to rather more worthy causes?

6.45 pm

Mr. Newmark: It would indeed be good if the Government applied that argument to traditional causes; as my right hon. Friend and I both represent rural areas, one in particular comes to mind. The only tradition to which the new Prime Minister seems to be clinging is that of being a control freak and spin doctor. The longer that he can control and have that information, the more he can spin it to the public as he wishes. That is the tradition that we want to destroy. It would be bad enough if the omission of pre-release were accidental, but it is quite explicit. As I have said previously, it is the black hole at the centre of the Bill.

I am delighted that the Government have given in to Opposition pressure over the transfer of residual ministerial responsibility to the Cabinet Office, although, again, I am rather cynical, because at the head of the Cabinet Office is the First Lord of the Treasury, the ex-Chancellor-I will go no further into that. The Government's refusal to move on the issue creates the increasing suspicion that Ministers have something to hide by not ensuring that pre-release is subject to the code. The double standards that have been set up between the board's code of practice and the ministerial code on pre-release threaten to undermine the perception of independence. We are in danger of ending up with legislation to entrench independence that does not address a significant perceived failing of that independence.

Lord Desai pursued a fascinating line of argument in another place when he suggested that

"governments do not gain much advantage from pre-release. Whatever advantage is gained is quickly dissipated partly by incompetence and partly by the fact that clever people can see through any spin that statistics may be given."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1081.]

Will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to rely on their own incompetence and the cleverness of the Opposition in seeing through spin to justify continued ministerial control of pre-release arrangements?

The truth is that allowing ministerial pre-release access to be controlled by ministerial fiat could not give a more effective shot in the arm to anyone with suspicions about Government interference in statistics. The Minister is merely the latest in a long line of ministerial beneficiaries of pre-release of statistics, but I hope that she will consent to be among the last crop of Ministers to control the rules governing pre-release directly.

...

EARLIER INTERVENTION IN THE SAME DEBATE

Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle: Let me finish my explanation-

Mr. Newmark: It is very long winded.

Angela Eagle: Well, I think that it is important to stress that, when one is on the Treasury Committee, if one cannot get to the sub-Committee meetings, it is disruptive simply not to agree with things, even if one might have disagreements, when one has not heard the evidence- [ Interruption. ] I am explaining to the hon. Lady that, while I was happy to sign up to the sub-Committee's report as a member of the main Committee, I reserved my position on my view of these things.

Mr. Newmark: On a point of clarification, will the hon. Lady at least admit to the Chamber that she was present at the final meeting, in which we reviewed the report in detail, and that, having reviewed the report in detail, she signed her name to the report?

Angela Eagle: That is absolutely true, but I believe in evidence-based policy making, and as I had, unfortunately, been unable to listen to any of the evidence, I did not feel, even as a full member of the Select Committee, that I wanted to disrupt the important work of the sub-Committee that had been looking into this matter in great detail. If I am being condemned for being a constructive member of the Treasury Committee, rather than a disruptive member, I fear that I must plead guilty.