---

Government Statistics

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, for introducing the debate, which has demonstrated both the importance of statistics and the range of statistics that we consider important. Before the debate began, I had the chance to look up the publication hub on the web—one of the consequences of the statistics Act—which gives the dizzying array of statistics that government produces every day. I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who asked whether some of these statistics really serve any purpose. Just as we from time to time talk about the necessity for having a cull of quangos, I think that a cull or review of statistics should be on the ONS radar. The debate is divided into two broad areas. The first is methodology—do we collect statistics in the right manner? The second is mechanics—do Ministers in particular use statistics, once collected, properly? The issues raised about methodology demonstrate the scope. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, began by talking about local authority statistics. The noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Macdonald, made a powerful case about the questions asked in the census. My recollection is—although this was some time ago—that in the run-up to the last census there was a long debate in your Lordships’ House about the religious questions. It seems that we need to have that debate again as it is in nobody’s interest that the census or, indeed, any other set of statistics should give a misleading impression. Trust, as many noble Lords have said, is the core of what we are seeking to achieve from official statistics of various sorts. Whenever that is in question, we need to look again at how we do things. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, raised a couple of fascinating points. One was about forecasting and the suggestion that we might have a list of black swans. Recent events have demonstrated that nobody is very good at forecasting; certainly the well paid forecasters in the City have all got it wrong, big time. While it might have been a good thing if they had followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and had a look at a number of black swans, I suspect that, given the nature of statistics and statisticians, it is quite hard to get forecasters to look at all the risks and come up with all the potential permutations. The one good example in that respect is the way in which the Monetary Policy Committee has a fan at the end of its forecast showing the probabilities of various outcomes. That good practice might be more generally adopted. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, also asked what the correct inflation measure is. I think that we can all agree that the CPI in its current form is not it. The acceptance over the past year or so by the Governor of the Bank of England that whatever measure you use has to take some cognisance of asset prices is a welcome change. We now wait to see how that change can best be implemented. Recently, the ONS has also had to revise its methodology for collecting statistics on retail sales, which were out of kilter with the information that was coming from the retailers. That was another example where pressure needed to be brought to bear on a series of statistics that clearly did not have the confidence of the sector about which they pertained. It is a good thing that those statistics have now been recast. On the role of Ministers, we have heard the arguments about how they have misbehaved. Nobody should be surprised that Mr Woolas behaved as he did. If ever anybody had form, it was him. Those of us who are veterans of the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election would have found nothing surprising in his response. The question that noble Lords have raised is what further can be done to rein in Ministers who might wish either to misuse statistics or to abuse the statistics authorities. The only practical measure, which we have debated many times, is to have a Joint Committee. That would raise the status of the issue. A single committee focusing solely on this issue would make a big difference, both in how Ministers thought about dealing with statistics and in giving support to the professional statisticians, knowing that they had a parliamentary watchdog that was really focusing on what they were doing. Finally, I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said about the move to Newport. We were concerned about it when the Bill was going through. It may be that the collapse of the financial services sector has meant that fewer statisticians have been thinking of leaving the service and going to greener pastures elsewhere. That may have had a marginal effect to the service’s benefit. It is good that that move is now largely and successfully completed. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, asked whether we should be more confident with the new arrangements. There is no doubt that, on balance, we should.