---

Government Statistics

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that Select Committee reports are jealously guarded by Select Committees, and the production of their reports is in their hands. They will produce their reports when they have completed their work. I have no greater access to information on that than the noble Lord. I am sorry to disappoint him. If, however, information is available, I will happily write to him in due course. The second point of considerable substance was made by my noble friends Lord Harrison and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. Looking at my brief, it does not seem to do justice to their two powerful contributions and I should like, therefore, to respond in writing. A neutral question is not always the one that will find the answer. However, there is the question on the census form where there is a box to tick if you have no religious belief. Also in the consultation many people wanted the question to be asked in the form in which it is currently drafted. Finally, we are having a consultation to see whether a better question can be formed. However, both noble Lords made some powerful arguments that I should like to take away, consult with my colleagues on and provide at least a more thorough and comprehensive answer than the one I have just given. I turn to some of the other points that were made. I did not recognise some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, attacking the statistics body. First, Sir Michael Scholar, a very distinguished civil servant who I knew in a former existence, is a man of integrity and toughness who was clearly the right man to be chosen for the job. We have heard quite a lot about the December incident regarding the knife crime statistics. Let us be clear: it was a mistake. The Government acknowledged that from No. 10. The Home Secretary issued a fact sheet that was the cause of the problem and made an apology to Parliament. We immediately sought guidance from the statistics agency on how the matter should be addressed. The Cabinet Secretary was involved. Advice was given so that everyone—whether special advisers, Ministers or non-statistician civil servants—should understand the importance of that situation not occurring again. We have also made provision that there will be an investigation of any pre-release errors. There will be errors; there have been errors. The point of this is to have a position where something is in place that can take such errors on board and eradicate the possibility of them happening a second or third time. That is what we are seeking to do.