Statistics and Registration Service Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5467, in the name of Tom McCabe, on the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
This is a welcome opportunity to reaffirm the Executive's position on a very important motion, which the Finance Committee considered and supported last month. The Scottish Executive wishes to be included in the bill because we are determined to promote the high integrity that exists in official statistics; that in itself is a good reason for our inclusion.
The bill's intentions were welcomed during discussions at Westminster, and a good deal of the written evidence that the Finance Committee received, including evidence from ISD Scotland, welcomed Scotland's inclusion.
The bill's aim is to reinforce the integrity and quality of official statistics by establishing a new independent statistics board, which will operate at arm's length from ministers and will have a statutory responsibility for promoting and safeguarding the quality of official statistics.
There are many good reasons for our being included in the bill. We will be able to continue with a common set of standards for statistics. We will be at one with our colleagues in Northern Ireland and Wales, who have agreed to participate. A common approach across the United Kingdom is the most efficient way to adhere to international statistical standards. The professionalism of independent scrutiny will be enhanced, because we will have access to top-level expertise. The bill will also create an important role for the Parliament to scrutinise the new board's work—that is one more sound reason for Scotland to be included in the bill.
In its report, the Finance Committee commented on the independence of the chief statistician. I hope that it is reassured by the facility for parliamentary committees to question not just the chief statistician but other statistical experts directly on the methods, format, content and timing of statistical releases. Given the high reputation of the parliament's committee system, I am sure that that will increase the integrity of official figures.
As is normal, we will produce a full response to the committee's recommendations. That response will be predicated on the Executive's determination to improve public confidence in official statistics.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the provisions of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 21 November 2006, which relate to statistics in Scotland and which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or which confer functions on the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
We oppose the motion on principle, on the basis that legislation that will materially affect Scotland should be scrutinised, debated and passed in Scotland, not at Westminster. There is no doubt that the motion, if agreed to as it stands, will have a materially adverse effect on Scotland.
Credible statistics are vital to aid improvement in the performance of Government over time, to maintain and increase the accountability of every tier of government and to provide external investors with a straightforward means of justifying future investments in our country. We oppose the motion because the bill has been subjected to inadequate parliamentary process, especially as it is liable to damage our reputation of integrity and probity, which has been built up over many years. We have had only one evidence-taking session on the bill and very little time to address the concerns that were voiced here in a members' debate in May last year. That debate firmly favoured the creation of a stronger, independent Scottish statistics body.
There is real concern about the evidence that was taken during the consultation process, which was nothing like comprehensive. Many people could have been consulted, especially retired people from the ranks of academia and retired civil servants. However, the evidence from Professor David Bell and ISD Scotland posed tough and important questions. Their concerns deserve full scrutiny and consideration, as do some of the points that were made in the Statistics Commission's evidence.
The quotations from ISD were particularly commendable, honourable, open and indicative of the fact that there is a real problem here in Scotland. It said:
"In ISD's case we find it difficult to steer a neutral course when publishing statistics especially so because most of the statistical collections and new developments have the SE as the main sponsor".
It also stated that
"The SE and Ministers naturally press for any positives to be highlighted",
and that there are
"pressures from policy colleagues to make late changes to publications".
It is important to stress that nowhere in the written evidence that ISD submitted to the Finance Committee, or in any other instance that we can find, has any accusation of pressure to distort figures been levelled. It is perfectly legitimate for a senior official or a minister to clarify or question the relevance of statistical productions. There is a clear and important distinction between comment and pressure to distort.
I will give a full response to that point, which I have factored into my speech.
The concerns of David Bell have particular resonance and deserve a better solution. He, too, highlighted the proximity of statisticians and analysts to their policy clients. In essence, he made the point that the agenda of statisticians is determined solely by their policy clients. He also pointed out the dangers of stagnation of Government statisticians through civil service seclusion, which is again determined solely by their policy clients. To his immense credit, he did not think that the current proposals would give us what we want. I put it to the minister that it will be largely business as usual, with the chief statistician for Scotland continuing to report to and be responsible to the Scottish Executive, which will remain his employer.
The bottom line is that, at a time when Scotland is falling off the radar on the International Institute for Management Development's world competitiveness index, we need comprehensive statistics in which we can have as much confidence as we can muster. That means that our statistics must be produced in an effective and objective fashion that is likely to maximise both their trustworthiness and their usefulness. The legislative consent motion and the current proposals will not do that. Rather, they risk further eroding public trust in Government statistics and devaluing our overall brand with investors. That is of the utmost importance: the presence of credible, effective institutions is critical to building and maintaining a nation's reputation. As Professor John Kay has written, reputation is a powerful mechanism, but only external supervision can ensure that reputations are not only earned but deserved.
Consequently, we recommend to members that the legislative consent motion be rejected; that we take further evidence on or conduct a full inquiry into statistical production in Scotland; and that we set up a Scottish board that would act, perhaps, as a subset committee to the proposed UK statistics board to ensure that the statistics that are produced by the Scottish Executive and other bodies are closely scrutinised for comprehensiveness and quality.
There are two fundamental questions to address. First, do we adhere to the policy that underlies the Westminster bill? Secondly, is the LCM the right route to take?
According to most people, the broad direction of the policy is right. Indeed, most of the criticism that has been levelled at the bill is that it does not go far enough. That argument has weight, but we should still concede that the bill represents some progress.
However, is supporting the LCM and passing the matter into Westminster's hands the best way of securing independence in the production of statistics? The minister and Jim Mather emphasised the need for the independence of and credibility in statistics. I am sure that, no matter what our political direction might be, we all accept that the more credible the statistics are and the more independent they are seen to be, the better our debates will be.
I do not query the validity of the member's basic theory. However, why should we be so suspicious of our objectivity in Scotland but accept the objectivity of a body in England?
The member makes a perceptive point. I am not saying that we should doubt our own objectivity or that we cannot have a Scottish system. Indeed, a very persuasive argument in that respect was put forward in last year's parliamentary debate on statistics, to which Jim Mather referred.
I confess that the evidence that was submitted to the Finance Committee in its consultation overwhelmingly supported taking the LCM route. However, I have particular issues with the consultation. The consultation document was issued on 11 December 2006 with a deadline of 9 January 2007 for responses to the parts with which we are dealing today. It is simply not acceptable to give people less than a month to respond to a consultation, particularly given the fact that the period included the Christmas holiday. I am concerned that, as a result, the responses that we received might not reflect the true balance of opinion over whether this route is the right one.
Because we do not feel that the consultation has been adequate, we simply cannot support the motion. The Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business said in evidence to the committee that the timescale had to be very tight because of the Queen's speech. However, although it appears that matters have been driven largely by the timetable at Westminster, the minister also said that officials had been liaising with officials in London for some time. Therefore, it cannot have been a surprise that a Statistics and Registration Service Bill would come up in the Queen's speech, and something could have been done to consult on the bill or, indeed, on its broader principles either before or immediately after it. Because of those flaws in the consultation process, we cannot accept the motion.
As far as I and the Liberal Democrats are concerned, this legislative consent memorandum will give us the benefits of being part of a larger organisation while ensuring that there is a robust Scottish dimension to its work. At the moment, the Scottish Executive is involved in about 20 per cent of the Office of National Statistics's sphere of work. Additionally, the office carries out specific work for the Executive. As the minister said, by taking this route, we will be able not only to link into a wider base of expertise using common base figures, but to provide a specific Scottish dimension that relates to the Scottish Parliament's spheres of work. Moreover, as part of a larger body, we will have access to a wider range of experts than we would do with a Scotland-only body.
The board will be able to collect information on reserved or devolved matters for the purpose of the production of UK-wide statistics, but the consent of Scottish ministers will be needed before its UK powers can be used in relation to devolved matters. Scottish ministers will have a power of direction if there is any failing in the provision of Scottish statistics.
The primary intention of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which is to create an independent statistical service, is admirable. It was shocking to discover from the bill's background material that fewer than one in five members of the population believes that there is no political interference in statistics. That situation applies both north and south of the border and we must address it.
I was surprised by Jim Mather's bad attack of negativity about what is proposed, which again reveals the separatist nature of the Scottish National Party. So intent are its members on their independence ideal that they seem unable to grasp that there are benefits to being part of a larger organisation.
I will be very brief. Unlike my colleague Mr Arbuckle, I am not surprised by the SNP's approach, but I am saddened by it. Regardless of the importance of what we discuss, for the SNP everything comes back to a single issue—Scotland's independence. If SNP members were as keen to talk about independence at hustings as they are to relate every issue that we discuss in the Parliament to it, they would find themselves being exposed even more readily than they are already. That will be our job in the months to come and I assure the SNP that we will do it with some confidence.
I am quite happy to talk about independence if the minister wants to. From the point of view of the holistic nature of governance, it would be preferable to have a statistical office here in Scotland than to have to depend on someone else's. What is more, instead of having to tap into resources that can be accessed only south of the border, why cannot we buy them in? We might want to get some Swedish statisticians to do some work for us; we could buy them in, too.
In her intervention on Derek Brownlee, the member mentioned that there might be a suspicion about our own objectivity. There is no question of that. The fact is that the establishment of an independent scrutiny board—it is as if the words "independent scrutiny" have been lost on the SNP and, sadly, on some other members—will allow us to maintain consistency throughout the United Kingdom. Whether some people like it or not, we are an integral part of the UK. No one can deny that the setting up of the board will give us access to a wider pool of statistical expertise. It will also ensure greater consistency in the adherence to international standards. All those issues are important if we are genuinely interested in raising the public's confidence in officially produced figures.
As I have said, it is simply beyond me how the creation of a statutorily independent scrutiny board can be seen to undermine public confidence. The thrust of the policy initiative is to enable us to demonstrate to the public that statistical information is produced and scrutinised independently. The Statistics and Registration Service Bill will allow that to happen. That is why we in the Scottish Executive believe that it is right to support the bill that is being considered by the Westminster Parliament.
That concludes that item of business. The next item of business is decision time, so I suspend the meeting until 5 pm.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—