---

Government Statistics

My Lords, I love it when noble Lords ask disingenuous questions to which they know the answer. It is the first lesson of politics never to ask a question when you do not know the answer. The noble Lord knows that that is not what I am saying at all. This issue is about building confidence in statistics, yet some noble Lords want to spend time discussing something that has been discussed several times before both here and in another place, for which apologies have been made and remedial action taken. It is not helpful in building confidence to dwell on that incident when we know that remedial action has been put in place. It is now a question of where we go from here in terms of the work of the statistics authority. The issue referred to was information on foreign born workers in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether any noble Lord described it correctly. Many of the people included in the statistics had been or could have been British citizens in the United Kingdom for many years. Why those statistics were released is a question for the National Statistician because she is independent and works for an independent body. A criticism that I have is that, having put in place a system that appears robust, which has caused a public apology to be made and remedial action to be taken, should we not now be saying that that proves the value of the authority, its board of management, its head of assessment and its chairman? We should be congratulating them rather than trying to see whether there is some other motive. We agree on several things. The ability of the statistics authority to comment independently on official statistics is an extremely important part of the Government’s reform programme. The Royal Statistical Society said in March, after the authority had been up and running for nearly a year: ""The authority is the independent and impartial body that Parliament intended"." That is a very important endorsement and I am grateful for the work done by those in the authority to ensure that that is the true situation. It is important to learn lessons from errors. The guidance note on the new code of practice—the one page affair—which was circulated, makes it clear how people who have doubts will be able to respond. A working party will be reporting shortly—some time this month—on the guidance that goes with the code. I turn to the issue that has also been the subject of a number of contributions—pre-release access. When the statistical order came into effect in December last year it reduced the maximum permitted amount of pre-release access from five days to just 24 hours. The Government believe that it is important for civil servants to have the opportunity to advise Ministers on the statistics. It is true that Sir Michael would like to reduce that, and we will review it when it has been operating for one year. A number of other countries, including Canada, which is an exemplar when it comes to statistics, Australia and the United States, albeit briefly, have pre-release statistics to allow the Government of the country to put before the public the reasoning and arguments of their case when statistics are released. A number of other questions were raised that I will not have the chance to answer in my 12 minutes. I will happily look at Hansard tomorrow morning and respond to all those requiring answers, although some are self-explanatory. I do not recognise some of the descriptions of the role of special advisers. It is not a question of the number of special advisers; it is a question of their role. The position has been made clear by the Prime Minister who revoked the ability of any special adviser to have authority over civil servants. I do not think that any special advisers are in any doubt about their role and their limitations. They do not make decisions; all decisions are made by Ministers. I will look through Hansard as I know that there are some questions that I have been unable to answer in the time allowed, and I will respond to noble Lords accordingly.