Statistics and Registration Service Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2007.

Clause 36

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We now come to the second, complementary side of arrangements for greater data sharing of administrative information and the confidentiality rather than the disclosure side of the equation. The clause is important because it sets out some of the safeguards for privacy rights that are fundamental to ensuring that people who provide their information can have confidence that the data will be held securely.

The clause specifies that personal information—information identifying individuals or businesses, whether held by the board or passed by the board to others, directly or indirectly—is confidential, with criminal sanctions for anyone found to have unlawfully passed personal information to others or to have revealed personal information.

We discussed in earlier sittings the benefits to be gained from data sharing, and we will return to it in more detail from clause 44 onwards. I shall concentrate on the protections that we need to put in place. Although there is strong public interest in the greater sharing of administrative data, there is an equally important public interest in ensuring that the confidentiality of such data is properly protected. We have attempted to ensure that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between those two objectives.

As the Government move to a greater era of data sharing—an era, rather, of greater data sharing—to deliver better, more responsive—[Interruption.] There is a little scoff from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. If one wants better, more responsive and more personalised public services, an element of greater personal data sharing is required and inevitable. What is important in the matter of statistics is the safeguarding and disclosure of those data.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I hope that the Minister did not misinterpret my scoff. It was not at the principle of data sharing but at his reference to entry into a greater era. I think those things are probably best left to historians.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He picked me up on a slip of the tongue; rather than a greater era, I meant to say—I think I did correct myself—an era of greater information sharing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that crystal clear to the Committee.

In the future, in such an era—greater or otherwise—it will be essential that people are confident that their personal data will be handled appropriately. Statistical surveys often rely on people giving their information voluntarily and even when that is not the case, statisticians need complete and truthful responses on which they can rely and, indeed, on which we can all rely for further analysis.

A statistical system, therefore, needs strong confidentiality safeguards to give individuals and businesses confidence that their personal information will not be disclosed improperly to other partiesfor other purposes. A crucial part of the board’s maintaining its credibility in collecting, analysing and publishing data is that there is the highest protection of such personal information.

The Office for National Statistics—indeed, the Government’s statistical service generally—has a long history of maintaining data confidentiality and already securely holds information including that from census returns, information on employees’ earnings and data on businesses’ profits. However, we are taking the opportunity in the Bill to increase the confidentiality safeguards and sanctions on personal data. On safeguards, the data-sharing arrangements that we propose will be permitted only for statistical purposes, only where they are judged in the public interest and only where permitted by the Bill, including the specific exemptions in clause 36, or by orders under theBill. Any proposed extensions by order must havethe agreement of Ministers and, most importantly,the further scrutiny and agreement of Parliament or the devolved Administrations.

The Bill introduces a criminal sanction for the unlawful disclosure of information concerning both individuals and businesses—whether held by the board, on members and employees, or by anyone to whom the board has passed the data on—where that information identifies an individual or business or where it might allow someone to deduce their identity. The criminal sanction, which could be up to twoyears’ imprisonment, is an important addition to the confidentiality regime for personal information collected by the board. The confidentiality provisions are structured to allow both the sharing provided for within the clause—whether current or new flows—and the necessary exceptions in subsection (4).

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s argument and the provisions in the Bill for the protection of individual data. They are absolutely right, as is the strengthening of the sanctions, but will the Minister confirm that it would not be right for people looking at the sharing of data in the public interest or for statistical purposes to say, “Oh, I was scared by the sanctions, so I thought it was safest not to bother considering how to share that information. It was safer to say no.”? Their obligation will be to balance the pros and cons and to consider the public interest adequately. The balance needs to be there, and should be tough on both sides of the equation.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My right hon. Friend is right. A balanced judgment and a tough examination of both sides of the equation, as he put it, is required from the board, from Departments with which the board is discussing potential future administrative data-sharing arrangements and, ultimately, from Ministers. Parliament will have to scrutinise and agree any proposed extension of data-sharing arrangements, as well as make judgments on such arrangements and hold to account the cumulative decisions of Ministers and the proposals and operation of the board.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has brought me neatly on to consideration of the exceptions in subsection (4). We have heard in Committee and beyond the House arguments for restricting the exceptions, such as removing exceptions for court orders or in criminal investigations, as was proposed in some earlier amendments. I hope that hon. Members will see such proposals as unrealistic and wrong, but I appreciate that they may have been confused and misled by some of the briefings that they have received.

For instance, the Royal Statistical Society seems to have altered its position at different stages. When we first published the Bill, the society suggested that the confidentiality clause should be substantially reduced and simplified:

“so that all personal information collected under the authority of the Board...or transferred to the Board...must not be disclosed nor used for other purposes.”

That clearly does not strike the right balance. It probably then reviewed and refined its position when it commented on the Opposition amendments. The Society’s view was that data transfers were essential to support an efficient and effective statistical system. The key is to allow such transfers while ensuring that no breach of confidentiality will occur and that the data will be used only for statistical purposes. However, it said:

“amendments 155-174 will have some undesirable consequences.”

I think that the society has come now to a better, balanced judgment that I hope the Committee will want to take into account.

Clause 36(4) contains a list of exceptions, which draws on experience of existing practice, in the case of the Office for National Statistics, and on experience with confidentiality clauses in other legislation—for instance, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

Will the Financial Secretary confirm that there are extensions to the exemptions list that go beyond the existing situation?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

It is not clear which exceptions or exemptions the hon. Lady is concerned about. We have made that list to strike the right balance, as I have described, between encouraging greater administrative data sharing, where that is in the public interest, and ensuring that the proper safeguards are in place, because that will also be a matter of public concern and interest. The list is drawn from the experience of the arrangements that the ONS already has in place and, as I have cited, in respect of our approach in other legislation. If the hon. Lady has specific concerns about particular exceptions, I hope that she will contribute to this debate.

The confidentiality clause works with the data-sharing provisions later in the Bill to ensure, first, that our existing data flows can continue, secondly, that specific extensions can be granted, subject to the strict safeguards that I have already outlined, and, thirdly, that there are stronger sanctions for disclosure, meaning that breaches of the confidentiality obligation are punishable by up to two years imprisonment. We have designed the clause to get a balanced approach that takes account of the need for flexibility in future data sharing and the need for reassurance about the basis on which any personal data might be used by the board.

In doing this, we were, as the Committee would expect, conscious of the human rights implications of our proposals and sensitive to the need to strike an appropriate balance between the wider public interest in data sharing and the rights of the individual. The data-sharing clauses and the confidentiality clauses are considered, as has been confirmed, to be compatible with convention rights. The board will be subject to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that public authorities should act in a way that is compatible with convention rights. In making any disclosure permitted by provisions of the Bill, the board will have to consider the compatibility of such disclosures with convention rights.

Since the publication of the Bill, the Information Commissioner’s office has told the Treasury that the Information Commissioner, who now also deals with data protection matters—which may formally have been the responsibility of the Data Protection Registrar—welcomes the creation of a criminal offence for the illegal disclosure of personal information under this clause, which he believes should act as a significant deterrent. He also welcomes the measures in the Bill that aim to ensure that any personal information required by the board for the production of statistics is tightly controlled and used only for the purposes required to exercise its functions. Overall, I understand that the Information Commissioner welcomes the recognition in the Bill of the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only where necessary and that confidentiality is respected. That is, as I explained at the start, the very essence of the balance that we are trying to strike.

I hope that I have given a helpful explanation of our principled approach in framing the Bill in general and clause 36 in particular. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I urge my hon. Friend to look at clause 36(5), as I think that it is infelicitously worded. It says:

“for the purposes of statistical research.”

Grammatically, that qualifies—

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. I am finding it difficult tohear you.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am asking my hon. Friend tolook again at subsection (5) because its wording is infelicitous. The phrase grammatically qualifies the verb “held”, but I think that it was intended to qualify the noun “access”.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

As my hon. Friend knows, I always try to avoid being infelicitous. If he feels that I have been, I am perfectly prepared to consider his point. It does not strike me immediately as apt, but I will reflect on it.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Welcome to the Chair, Sir John. I shall respond to a couple of the Financial Secretary’s comments. The Conservatives have not sought to press any of the amendments to this clause that we debated—rather unsatisfactorily, because of time constraints—on Tuesday evening.

I return to one of the exemptions in clause 36 to probe the Financial Secretary’s thinking a bit more. He set out clearly the sanctions and safeguards that will give people who pass on personal information to the board confidence about its use, and listed three circumstances in which that personal information could be used. One use is for statistical purposes. I think that we all agree that that is why the data will be collected in the first place, but I was concerned about the third exemption. After due parliamentary process, the data collected by the board could be used by another Department under the exemption in subsection (4)(a). It concerns me to wonder for what purpose such data might be used. If subsection (4)(a) were qualified by the words “for statistical purposes”, I could understand and accept it, but the exemption is broad. It applies to disclosures

“required or permitted by any enactment”.

I shall give a scenario to which I should like the Financial Secretary to say how subsection (4)(a) will apply.

In the 2011 census, data will be collected on the population of the UK—their address, personal data and date of birth. In theory, that census data could be used by enactment as a cross-check against the national identity database to see whether the database is complete. If people knew that that was the case, they might be rather reluctant to provide data for the purpose of the census.

I do not see anything in subsection (4)(a) that would preclude, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the cross-checking of census data against the national identity database. What limits will apply to that provision? It is quite broad in its potential use and could apply toany future enactment or allow data to be released retrospectively without the consent of the individuals concerned. Will he explain a bit more about how he foresees the provision being used? There are later exemptions in the Bill that will allow information to be passed on to Departments for specific reasons, but it would be useful for the Committee to have greater clarity about the extent to which he believes subsection (4)(a) will be used.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

My first concern is retrospection and whether information provided on the assumption that it will be confidential could be used for different purposes under a subsequent enactment. Can the provision be used for such purposes, or will there be no retrospection in that respect?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Lady’s concern will be dealt with by the requirements in the Bill to strike the appropriate balance between greater data sharing and protection of individual confidentiality and data. Both of these will be ensured by the safeguards and sanctions contained in the Bill. Any extension of data sharing arrangements will have to be set out very clearly in any subsequently proposed order and will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure—I have ensured that such matters will be dealt with that way. I expect that such arrangements will be carefully monitored by the board and, indeed, by the House as they are implemented. That should give the hon. Lady the reassurance she seeks and allay the concerns that may lie behind her question.

To the hon. Member for Fareham, I repeat what I said at the end of our last sitting, which is that there are no time constraints on consideration of the Bill in Committee. Happily, the parties reached a shared view on programming the Committee stage. As I explained on Tuesday evening, Government Members were prepared to stay as long as necessary to give proper scrutiny to the clauses we were then considering. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has not when debating previous amendments made points that in general terms relate to clause 36, it seems to me appropriate, with your indulgence, Sir John, that they debated now. I do not understand his reiteration that time constraints are an issue.

Subsection (4)(a) is in the clause simply to take into account other Acts of Parliament that this House may pass that may affect the arrangements in the Bill. The limits on the extent of subsection (4)(a) are, in simple terms, the limits that are set by this House under other Acts of Parliament. I think if the hon. Gentleman pauses he will recognise that that is necessary in the context of the Bill; otherwise it could have legal precedence over any other Act of Parliament and intent of this House expressed in legislation. When we consider some of the clauses that relate to the Registrar General, we will examine an example of existing legislation that sets out certain conditions in which data may be shared between the Registrar General and, for example, the health service—in that case, patient records. The purpose of subsection (4)(a) is to accommodate the circumstances that arise if Parliament passes legislation that is relevant to the data sharing arrangements in the Bill but that the Bill is not designed to override.

I hope with that explanation all hon. Memberswill be prepared to allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Briefly, my concern is that the board and the statistical process might be used as a conduit for information to pass to Government Departments in a way that the people who supplied the data would not expect. The board may be used as a conduit for information to flow that may be inappropriate in the light of the reasons why the data were collected in the first place. I still have concerns about that and it may be an issue that we return to on Report.

Clause 37

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I will not detain the Committee long, but the clause is important because under it the board will be able to refuse to release personal information following a freedom of information request, whereas, in contrast, public authorities that have received personal information from the board might have to release it following such a request. I think that that might require some explanation and justification.

The clause does not mean that it will always be necessary for a public authority that holds such information to release it. Depending on the information in question, there might be reasons for not releasing it that are permitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For example, in certain circumstances an authority could refuse to release information that identifies a living individual. The clause will allow historical information to continue to be passed to researchers and is consistent with the Government’s commitment to openness made in the 2000 Act.

The FOI Act gives any person the right to ask for, and be given, any information held by a public authority. It also sets out, however, a number of situations in which data are to be protected from release. One of those situations, which are called “exemptions” in the Act, is when there is a legal bar to data being released. The confidentiality obligation for personal information in clause 36 provides such a bar, as we have discussed, as it legally obliges the board and its employees not to pass personal information to others except in the limited cases set out.

As such, personal information held by the board will not have to be released under the FOI Act. That will help to ensure that survey respondents have confidence that personal information passed to the board is unlikely to be released. However, that provision must be balanced against the commitments to openness made in the FOI Act and the value to researchers of historical data. Clause 37 therefore sets out that when personal information is passed by the board to other public authorities, it will not automatically be exempt from release under freedom of information simply because of the confidentiality obligation. It may, however, be exempt from release on another basis, as I have said, such as in certain circumstances if it may identify a living individual.

To that extent, the clause replicates the current situation. For example census records, which are personal information, will continue to be passed by the board to the national archives in time for release after 100 years, and the clause ensures that the archives can continue to release historical census information in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958 and freedom of information obligations.

The Information Commissioner’s view is relevant to the clause. Overall, he welcomes the fact that the Bill recognises the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only when necessary, that confidentiality is respected and that the criminal offence of illegal disclosure of personal data will help to underpin the system.

Finally, Sir John, there has been some suggestion that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 should be included in the clause. I am actively considering that and working with parliamentary counsel and the relevant Scottish authorities to determine what, if anything, needs to be done. I hope that the Committee will understand that should an amendment be required, I propose to table it on Report.

Clause 39

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in clause 39, page 17, line 6, leave out subsection (4).

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in clause 39, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (5).

No. 165, in clause 39, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (6).

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

These probing amendments were tabled to enable us to understand the process. I suspect that the clause was drafted so as to maintain the existing arrangements but I want to understand why that is, given that the role of the National Statistician and the Registrar General are being prised apart by the Bill. I understand why the National Statistician needs to receive information from the Registrar General but why will the board pass the data to the Department of Health? Why cannot the Registrar General pass it directly to the Department? What is the reason for routing it through the board?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions simply and specifically, as they refer to what appears to be the main concern about the clause. There will of course be circumstances in which the Registrar General, both now and when the role is separated from the office and function of the National Statistician, passes data directly to the health service. Information that could include name, date of birth, place of birth, usual address and other such data may go straight from the Registrar General to the health service. As the ONS is currently able to do, the statistics board can add to that data coding by post code, by ward and by administrative area. In other words, the statistics service may add further data that enrich what can then be passed to, and used by, the health service.

There are circumstances in which and data on which the ONS can add further analysis of a quality that is of value to the health service. The clause is designed to cover and make provision for circumstances in the future when the Registrar General and the National Statistician are no longer legally and operationally the same person.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am content with my understanding of the rationale for the process through the board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 40

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 166, in clause 40, page 17, leave out lines 20 to 26 and insert—

‘(3) The information disclosed may not include any information which would allow the identification of an “individual”.’.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 167, in clause 40, page 17, line 30, leave out subsection (5).

No. 168, in clause 40, page 17, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—

‘(6) Section 36 does not permit the disclosure by the Board of any information received under this section.’.

No. 169, in clause 41, page 18, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

These are probing amendments through which we are attempting to understand the data flows through the system and to probe what information is required. Amendment No. 166 would delete subsection (3) and replace it with the provision stating that information about NHS registration can be passed but that it should not

“include any information which would allow the identification of an ‘individual’”.

The amendment would reduce the detail of the information supplied in order to protect confidentiality.

I have a question about the amount and detail of the data supplied. Subsection (3)(d) will allow information about the history to be transferred. With reference to amendments Nos. 167 and 169, will the information be used for any purpose other than the production of the mid-term population statistics? Such statistics—in particular Slough’s problems estimating mid-term figures—have been a feature of debates in Committee and were a feature of the Second Reading debate.

Amendment No. 168 would remove subsection (6). Will the Minister explain how the exemptions relateto clause 36(4)(c) and (h) and how they apply toclause 40?

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I shall support my hon. Friend’s amendment unless the Minister can provide me with a little comfort about a concern that I have. I understand the Government’s objectives and the reasons for their proposals, but the Bill should not conflate statistics, which try to identify general trends, and personal information, which might identify individuals. I hope the Minister will reassure me that that will not happen.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I, too, support the amendment, because subsection (3) ranges extremely widely. The Minister tries to ensure that information about registrations between general practices—people moving from one general practice to another, or from one health authority area to another—is properly captured. The explanatory notes describe the process as the creation of an information gateway; I think they mean the creation of a power to ensure that the board still receives the information.

In subsection (3)(d), which the amendment covers, the information to be provided as part of the measurement of flows of people from one general practice to another includes the reasons for an individual’s cancellation or re-registration. There may be many reasons why one cancels one’s registration with one’s general practitioner, and they may have nothing to do with one’s relocation to a different part of the country. One may be unhappy with the performance of the general practice, for example. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the board to start piling up information about why people have moved. Surely the board needs only the statistical information that an individual has moved or has changed GP. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why subsection (3) must go so far as to cover, in paragraph (d), the reasons for people registering or not registering.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Clauses 40 and 41 provide for the Secretary of State for Health, public authoritiesor Welsh Ministers to share patient registration information with the board for the production of population statistics. To be clear, clause 40(4) makes it explicit that patient registration information does not include any information about the health, care or treatment of individuals.

Patient registration information is information about persons who are or who have been registered in any place in England or Wales as persons to whom primary medical services are provided. That may include, but is not limited to, information such as a person’s address, their date of birth, their gender or their NHS number. The provisions replicate the current data sharing arrangements within the Office for National Statistics.

It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain exactly what happens to such information. Patient registration information is collated and held in the national health service central register, which is currently maintained at the Office for National Statistics and is used primarily to manage the transfer of medical records between GP practices and between the NHS and the armed forces’ medical services. Statisticians in the ONS have access to that information, and that access enables the ONS to derive and estimate migration within England and Wales and between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The data covered by the clause will therefore allow greater monitoring and analysis of migration and population movements—something in which the Committee has taken an interest, as the hon. Member for Fareham said. I think that all Committee members want there to be better quality, more up-to-date data to assist in some important areas of policy-making.

Amendment No. 166 would prevent the Secretary of State or another public authority from disclosing tothe board any information that would allow the identification of an individual. That would mean that all information would have to be in an anonymised, non-identifying format. I hope that the hon. Member for Braintree will understand that the distinction he tried to draw between statistics on general trends and data on registration represents a conceptual difference, but in practice it is important to bring them together.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I believe that I understand exactly what the Minister says, but my concern is that in trying to identify such trends, one should not use personal information that might end up identifying specific individuals.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Although information will be processed at an individual level by the statistics board, only aggregate statistics will be published. The Bill introduces legal provisions to maintain the confidentiality of information and will penalise any breaches of those provisions.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

It is interesting to see the way in which the debate is going because it illustrates the importance of having absolute clarity about the tension between having the quality of information at the most local level and ensuring that confidentiality is protected in the way set out by the Minister. That is important because if one errs too far in one direction, one may find, as we did in the past, that information simply does not pick up what happens at the most local level, particularly in rural areas. The protection must be there so that we can be assured that data are used in an appropriate way to ensure that the interests of every area are properly analysed and understood.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My right hon. Friend is right. In dealing with concerns about understanding flows of population, it is necessary for statisticians to have access to the data. The important question then is whether that takes place in circumstances that sufficiently safeguard the confidentiality of certain types of data and the uses to which they may be put. That is the essence of the debate that we are having this morning.

The reason is that, just like the ONS at present, the board will need to have access to identifiable information if it is going to continue to produce—let alone improve— useful and meaningful population statistics. Such statistics require the ability to identify all moves where an individual has registered a change of permanent address, thus enabling the board to identify which individuals should be counted as migrants and in what data periods, areas and population sub-groups. Individual records are required for matching and tracing migrants between separate reporting periods; research into understanding, for instance, patterns of migration by linking recent and older records is possible only if the two types of records can be matched individually.

It has become increasingly important for policy makers to be well informed about migration, both to monitor the pattern and trends in flows and to respond to changes in the position and impact of migrants within society and the economy.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

This aspect of the data caused some of the problems in Slough which I spoke to the Minister about, and part of the failure to estimate mid-year populations accurately is to do with such things. For example, young men in particular do not necessarily have a health record, as they tend not to register with GPs. Therefore, connecting all the pieces of information has significance, if only to statisticians, who can work out whether particular classes of people not registering and so on. That might help to improve the accuracy of some of our poor counts, with results in respect of the failings in our current population counts.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My hon. Friend has become something of an expert in the field. She has powerfully made the case for the provisions, which we continue in clause 40. The clause is drafted to create a statutory gateway that will allow the board to continue to have access to patient registration information for the production of population statistics.

Amendments Nos. 167 and 169 would widen the scope of clauses 40 and 41 so that the patient registration information could be used by the board for any purpose. The clause would, therefore, not restrict how the information might be used by the board—although, clearly, when taken with amendment No. 166, the usefulness of the information for the board would be limited.

I have explained the Government’s intention, as part of the reforms, to transfer the national health service central register from the Office for National Statistics. Given that, placing the long-standing data-sharing arrangement on a statutory footing is necessary, so that the board can continue to use patient registration information for the production of important population statistics. I hope that that assures hon. Members.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has talked through how the information can be used, but I still wonder whether there is any way in which less detail could be provided, while still achieving the objectives that the hon. Member for Slough referred to.

I was also struck by the Financial Secretary’s comments on subsection (5), which restricts the use to which the data can be put. The restriction is very clear. I am not sure that I would wish to remove it, but it is a tight restriction compared to the broad ability in clause 36(4)(a) for any enactment to be used to share the data. On the one hand, we have provisions that enable broad use, subject to legislation, and on the other, some tightly worded subsections restricting the use of data. There is a contradiction, which we need to explore later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 42

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in clause 42, page 18, line 36, leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 38.

This is another probing amendment on the ability of data to be released and shared, in this case between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the board. I understand why the clause states:

“Subsection (1) does not authorise the disclosure of personal information”.

It then gives the exemption:

“other than personal information relating to the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom.”

I should be grateful to the Financial Secretary if he could explain why we need the exemption and why he seeks to qualify the general position on authorisation by reference to the subset of information that is collected by Revenue and Customs.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

In essence, the hon. Gentleman asks why we need this wording and this specific focus on import and export data, particularly if we are already sharing them. The answer lies in the implementation of section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenues and Customs Act 2005. That limited HMRC’s ability to share information, by laying down the general rule that HMRC may not disclose any information held or received by it in the course of its functions.

Since the 2005 Act came into force, officials have been examining the HMRC’s disclosures of data to ensure they are consistent with the rules laid down in the CRC Act. Those investigations have brought to light two occasions when information has been disclosed to the ONS and then fed into the compilation of national accounts, so it has that important function.

The 2005 Act permits HMRC to disclose data in certain specified circumstances, one of which is where another provision authorises disclosure. That is similar to subsection (4)(a) in the previous clause. The clause will form such a provision to ensure that HMRC can lawfully share data with the new board in the same way as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise shared data with the ONS. So it is intended to put beyond any doubt the basis for the necessary and current sharing of information that relates to import and export data.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

Is the Financial Secretary suggesting that there was some doubt about the legality of the data sharing between HMRC and the ONS that the clause is needed to correct?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

As I have explained, there are two occasions specifically, when looking at the disclosures of data from HMRC, when it will be helpful to have greater clarity and certainty than we believe at present the 2005 Act offers. That is the basis for the provision that we have included in clause 42.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I think that clarification is helpful, as we are obviously clarifying the drafting of a previous Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I want to pursue more generally the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. The clause is very wide, and I fully understand what the Financial Secretary has just said. He is trying to replicate a power in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, to ensure that the information that is sent to the ONS under that Act continues to be sent to the board. However, that is not quite what clause 42(1) would do. It refers to information in connection with

“any function of the Revenue and Customs.”

I have two concerns about that.

First, the restriction of that information is not contained in the clause itself but set out in the explanatory notes. Paragraph 165 states:

“It is intended that two categories of data will be disclosed under this provision”.

That does not reassurance us much. Presumably, the Financial Secretary could add to those categories, or a future Minister with new intentions could specify further categories of information to be disclosed. Can the Minister reassure me that the explanatory notes contain the existing categories that are disclosed and that it will not be possible to widen them further than is suggested by the intentions that are set out?

My second question is on a point recently raised by the hon. Member for Slough, who is sadly not in her place. I quite understand why personal information will not be disclosable under the clause—I welcome that—but the Financial Secretary has referred to one of the central problems that besets the ONS: the lack of comprehensive data on migration.

One of the key matters is the number of people entitled to national insurance cards and those who are registered and deregistered for them. At the moment, that seems a hazy area. Even though personal information cannot be disclosed, under the clause, can the board produce more accurate migration statistics by examining the data on the number of national insurance cards, or can it only examine data on the collection of national insurance contributions—in other words, the amount paid, rather than the number of cards issued?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the clause and his attempt to help the Committee understand the Government’s thinking.

The clause does indeed permit the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs or an officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pass information held by HMRC to the board for use in connection with one or more of its statistical functions. It only permits the sharing of personal information—defined in clause 36, as data that can identify individuals or businesses—that relates to the import or export of goods. That is considered personal information because it can identify businesses and, in some cases, individuals who are sole traders.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks tempts me to stiffen the clarity and commitment in the explanatory notes. It is intended that two categories of data will be shared under the clause, both of which are currently shared. Any future Minister or Government could make amendments, as is the case with any legislation in any policy area.

The first category of data to which the provision will apply is

“summary data, including information on income tax and National Insurance contributions, which is currently provided by Revenue and Customs to ONS, to allow ONS to produce statistics, including estimates of the UK national income, as a part of their production of the UK National Accounts”.

Those data are not personally identifiable. They are less relevant to the future improvement of migration and population statistics than some of the proposals that the National Statistician is putting in place through her recent working group. If hon. Members want to pursue their concern about the quality of migration statistics, I refer them to the group’s report.

The second category of data is

“information relating to the import or export of goods to and from the UK, which is currently passed from Revenue and Customs to ONS to allow ONS to produce statistics. ONS use the data to identify businesses to survey about import and export prices, and in the analysis of the results of such surveys. Results from ONS’s surveys feed into indices of the prices charged to producers (part of the measurement of the value added by UK manufacturers), and into analyses of the UK balance of payments in the National Accounts.”

That information is considered personal, as defined under the Bill, because individuals can be identified from it. If the ONS did not receive that information from HMRC, it would need to survey many more businesses to find out which of them import and export goods. All hon. Members will appreciate that that would significantly increase the survey burden on businesses. Furthermore, the quality of the statistics that ultimately come into the national accounts would be impaired. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will accept the clause.

Clause 44

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 44, page 19, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4A) notwithstanding subsection (4), any personal information acquired under section 44 cannot be disclosed.’.

Clause 44 gives powers to the Treasury to make regulations to enable or require public authorities to disclose information to the board. I understand why such powers may be required: to reduce the costs of national statistics and improve their comprehensiveness and accuracy. There is certainly great support from the business community for measures that seek to reduce the cost of data collection when there are alternative routes. That underpins part of the argument forclause 42.

The amendment is designed to address concerns about creating information gateways. I am worried that we are creating the potential for data to flow from the public authority to the board and then, throughthe provisions of clauses 36 and 44, to another Government body. Is it appropriate for the board to be used as a conduit in that way? Would it not be far better for the information gateway to be directed, when that is required and necessary, between the public authority and the Government Department that might use the data?

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

The way I read it, clause 44 contains quite wide powers for the Treasury to authorise the disclosure of information where disclosure would otherwise be illegal or ultra vires. Although that information can only be gathered for statistical purposes and cannot be used for any other reasons, I support amendment No. 171, which clarifies a point about which I was concerned before by seeking to ensure that any personal information obtained in that way cannot be disclosed. That is important, because at the moment, under subsection (6)(b), the Treasury can make regulations containing “consequential and supplementary” provisions, which could authorise further disclosure by the board, even where that would otherwise be illegal, as mentioned in subsection (7)(b).

In the absence of amendment No. 171, I am concerned that the Treasury could, effectively, make regulations and not be subject to any scrutiny, thereby empowering the board to collect personal information and then to disclose it, even where it would otherwise be illegal. That sweeping power should, at least, contain a ban on the disclosure of personal information, as amendment No. 171 provides.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Would not the hon. Gentleman’s remarks be better addressed to the debate on clause 48, titled “Power to authorise disclosure by the Board”? We are discussing clause 44—and amendments thereto—which is titled “Power to authorise disclosure to the Board: Scotland”

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I could have done it either way, but I decided to raise the point in relation to clause 44.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Before dealing with specific amendments and points raised by the hon. Members for Fareham and for Braintree about amendmentNo. 171, I should like to say that clause 44 is the central clause relating to the power to authorise disclosure of information to the board. It is worth emphasising that the aim of the clause and the Bill is to ensure that information can be shared to provide better services and better policies to support those public services for citizens and businesses and that it can be used in other instances where that is in the public interest. We are creating a framework that will ensure the continued sharing of data between the ONS and other parts of the Government for the purpose of statistical production and analysis. We are also creating a mechanism to allow for increased data sharing between the ONS and other parts of the Government, and vice versa, where that is for the sole purpose of statistical production—and only where that sharing is judged to be in the public interest.

The specific extensions of access will be agreed through secondary legislation that will be subjectto parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure and will therefore require the approval of the House. I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and other Committee members have recognised, there is in principle a clear case for stronger sharing of administrative data. Such sharing can improve the quality of statistical data and analysis and improve our ability to make and judge the impact of policy. Re-use of data means that statisticians can produce richer statistics and better analyses, often without needing to survey the same topic again. It also has the potential to bring benefits in reducing the burden on those responsible for completing, or required to complete, the surveys on which many of our official statistics depend.

The 2005 report by the Better Regulation Task Force, “Regulation—Less is More. Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes”, recommended increased data sharing between Departments to reduce the intrusion on business and the complexity and the time required for businesses to complete surveys. The Confederation of British Industry echoed a recommendation that Philip Hampton made in his 2005 review:

“It would, in principle, be helpful if government departments and regulators could hare information to reduce duplication”.

As part of the Whitehall-wide plan to reduce administrative burdens, the ONS has committed, as part of its simplification plan, to making £10 million worth of reductions in the burden of business by 2015. Almost two thirds of those savings—approximately£6 million—are expected to come from the greater use of administrative data for statistical purposes in place of the survey returns from respondents that are currently required.

The other principal case for greater data sharing is to deal with declining survey response rates. The response rates in many of the ONS’s major surveys have declined in recent years. The general household survey had an 83 per cent. response rate when it was introduced in 1971, but that response had fallen to 72 per cent. by 2005. As survey response rates decline, the chances become higher that the results will be distorted and less reliable and will not truly represent the state of the British population.

Enhancing the sharing of administrative data will help us to deal with some of the problems with declining survey response rates, and will reduce the cost to the Government of conducting the surveys. That can help in three ways. First, it can help statisticians to compensate for lower response rates by allowing them to augment the information that is available for analysis. Secondly, it can help statistical services to target future surveys at those who are less likely to respond, because it will allow them to define more clearly and accurately the groups in which response rates are a concern and to concentrate attentionand activity on them. Thirdly, the greater use of administrative data might, in the long term, offer an alternative to survey activity.

Our approach provides for extensions to currentdata sharing under the powers in clauses 44 to 50. In broad terms, there could be increased data sharing between the board and other public authorities where regulations are made to permit such sharing. Of course, any such regulations would be subject to further scrutiny and approval by Parliament. In practice, the discussion and preparation of potential regulations will be between the board and Departments, but, importantly, Ministers will be required to give formal agreement prior to the laying of any such order before the House or any devolved Administration.

We adopted that approach to allow the system to evolve. Data sets might be created that could bring significant benefits to statistical analysis if they are linked with those produced by other Departments. Clause 44 and the following clauses will permit further sharing under regulations. We are doing that through regulations rather than primary legislation to allow flexibility in the system for future evolution. The system must be able to adapt to future statistical resources and needs. It must also allow scope for new indicators to be developed that can provide a more accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK through the statistics and analyses that we produce.

Amendment No. 171 would prevent the board from sharing with others information received under the regulations, but, in general, the circumstances in which the board is able to share data that it has received from other public authorities under the enabling clause are limited. As we discussed, clause 36 includes the limited list of exceptions to the obligation of confidentiality. Clause 44 restricts the exceptions further, so unlessthe regulations make provision to permit further disclosure, the board will not be able to share such data in pursuit of its functions or with approved researchers as a matter of course. It is important that the public have confidence that their personal information will be held securely. Under subsection (4), the board will not therefore be able to share data that it has acquired through the enabling clause in pursuit of its function or with approved researchers.

The provisions leave the board able to disclosethe information only in the remaining, limited, circumstances covered in clause 36. To allow sharing in those circumstances is sensible and necessary, for reasons similar to those that we discussed during our consideration of clause 36. It is right that the board should be able lawfully to share information, for example in response to a court order, to comply witha community obligation, or to aid a criminal investigation, or to release information that has already been lawfully released. We do not want to make release of data in those circumstances a criminal offence.

There are occasions when the board needs to share data with others. The clause appropriately captures those circumstances. The hon. Member for Fareham indicated that his was a probing amendment; I hope that I have given him sufficient reassurance not to feel the need to take it further.

Mark Hoban (Conservative, Fareham)

I thank the Minister for his remarks.

I would like to complete the CBI quotation that the Minister used earlier. The CBI said:

“However, the information provided must only be used for the same type of purpose by all bodies and careful and detailed consideration must be given to concerns related to data protection and privacy.”

That strand has been running through the debate. I would argue that if information is held by another public body, that body could be served a court order to release it, rather than people going through the board or the Office for National Statistics. I understand the Minister’s point and the rationale behind data sharing, but we need to examine more carefully how we restrict data that are shared, to ensure that they are released predominantly for statistical use, with certain specified exemptions. That may be a theme that we return toat a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 45

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

As we have been talking about the need to share data and the clause is among a set that deals with devolved bodies, I wanted to ask how we deal with the fragmentation of statistics and what co-operation exists with devolved Administrations. We know that the census agreement for 2011 has been signed by the three Registrars General of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. None the less, the Treasury Committee report “Independence for Statistics” raised a concern that the fragmentation of some statistics across the UK was continuing. One of the report’s recommendations was to review the concordat on statistics. It states that the Select Committee

“welcome the Minister’s commitment, on behalf of the Government, to review the Concordat on Statistics, particularly in light of his suggestion that, while this fragmentation has been an issue for some time because of differing local circumstances and requirements, devolution has led to an inevitable intensification of the problem.”

It goes on to recommend

“that the Government negotiate a revised Concordat with the devolved administrations, that the National Statistician, in consultation with the chief statisticians for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, be given responsibility for drafting a revised Concordat and that the new independent board be given responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the revised Concordat.”

Taking into account that recommendation and the evidence of witnesses who believe that recent experience has provoked the need to review the issue now, surely it makes sense for a review and renegotiation to take place. I am asking for the Minister’s commitment not only to review the concordat but to renew it. What plans does he have to update that?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

If the hon. Lady looks at the official record of our discussions on Tuesday afternoon, she will see that we had quite a good debate on devolution and concerns about the coherence, comprehensiveness and co-ordination of statistics. I will not reiterate the detailed points covered by the Committee, but I will say one thing about the Treasury Committee and then deal specifically with the concordat, as I accept that we did not deal with it in particular detail on Tuesday afternoon. The hon. Lady will find that the Treasury Committee report was published before I could announce the full participation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Bill’s provisions. She will also probably find that that participation was welcomed by members of the Select Committee as well as by Opposition Front-Benchers.

As the hon. Lady said, I made it clear when I gave evidence to the Treasury Committee that we had begun work with the devolved Administrations to take a fresh look at the concordat and see where it needed updating and strengthening. The concordat is an important and useful arrangement that cannot be replicated or imported into primary legislation, so it has an important part to play alongside the Bill.

The hon. Lady will appreciate that producing UK statistics, and doing so in a combined way when those statistics relate to devolved matters, relies on the co-operation of the devolved Administrations rather than on legislation. All Administrations expressed their commitment to co-operation in the concordat, which was annexed to the memorandum of understanding on devolution in 2001. Given that it set the overall framework for co-operation and was supported by other non-legislative bilateral agreements between the Administrations, that framework had the full support of the devolved Administrations. The framework document described in detail how the framework for national statistics, which we introduced in 2000, would operate in each Administration. There is clearly more to do, and that is probably the reason behind the hon. Lady’s concern. I strongly welcome the decision of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to sign up to the legislation. It will give the board a role working with all four Administrations. I expect the board’s objective of promoting and safeguarding the quality of official statistics, which includes coherence with other statistics, as stated explicitly in clause 7(2)(b), to give it a role in promoting consistent statistics throughout the United Kingdom.

To further our aim for improvement in the consistency and coherent co-ordination of statistics, we are working with the devolved Administrations to see whether other, non-legislative mechanisms may be needed to support the Bill, including the possible revision of the concordat on statistics between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we are working on those non-legislative matters with the commitment of all four Administrations, although the work that we are doing on the legislation may be more obvious.

Clause 47

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that the Committee may wish for a brief explanation of the clause, as it is an important part of the Bill. It sets out a mechanism that allows the board to use information that is received from a public authority, by creating a power for the Treasury to make regulations to authorise the use of that information, where there is an existing legal barrier to the board’s using it. The power may be used to allow the board to use for additional purposes information that it has already received, which could allow it to improve the quality of statistics. That in turn could improve policy making, resource allocation and the delivery of public services. The power may also be used to reduce the burden on data providers, such as requests for businesses and individuals to fill out surveys, by removing the need to collect information that is already held by the board.

The clause uses the same mechanism as that in clauses 44 to 46. Regulations must be made with the consent of another Minister of the Crown who, together with the Treasury, must be satisfied that the disclosure is required for the board to carry out the functions for which the disclosure is authorised, and that the disclosure is in the public interest.

Clause 52

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I wish to speak briefly on the clause, which envisages the abolition of the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of both those organisations.

With regard to the ONS, the key problem that we have focused on is the treatment by Ministers of statistics. Of course it is important to consider the methodology and quality of the production of statistics, but there is consensus that they are of high quality. The problem that we are trying to address is political interference, or the perception of it, in the fruits of the labours of statisticians. I pay tribute to the high quality of the work of Government statisticians.

I also congratulate the Statistics Commission on its excellent work since it was founded in 2000, and I give credit to the Government for setting it up. It has been a fearless defender of statistical integrity and a fearless critic of ministerial activities in a number of instances. As we have stated, it is a weakness of the Bill that it merges the activities of the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. That was why we tabled a number of amendments to separate responsibility for the production of statistics from the responsibility to scrutinise their production and release. There would have been a much more effective structure if the Bill had kept those functions separate, as illustrated by the effective role played by the Statistics Commission in the past few years.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to single out the clause. It is contained in a part of the Bill entitled “Consequential” but it is not entirely consequential. We are, of course, replacing the ONS with the statistics board, but we are abolishing the only watchdog that we have, the Statistics Commission. I, too, as the chairman of the Sub-Committee to which the commission was accountable, wish to pay tribute to its work under first Sir John Kingman and then Professor David Rhind. They had a small budget and a small staff, which has contributed in no small measure to the proposed improvements.

I ask the Financial Secretary for more detail on the timetable for the abolition of the two bodies. As I understand clause 71, it refers to different commencement orders being laid for different provisions. I am not sure whether the abolition will have to come into force as a whole or whether it will be possible to delay the commencement of clause 52(b)—the abolition of the commission—until we are sure that the appropriate replacement scrutiny functions are in place. I understand why the board will take on the existing functions and staff of the ONS—that is quite clear. It does not necessarily follow that within a week or so of the Bill being passed the Statistics Commission, our only watchdog, must be swept away. Given the pace with which change is implemented in the House, it is wholly possible that the House willnot have come to a conclusion on the scrutiny arrangements that it wishes to make to replace the Statistics Commission.

I understand that it is not for the Financial Secretary or the Government to prescribe the new scrutiny arrangements. Indeed he has emphasised, if I am right, that that will be a matter for the House as a whole or probably for both Houses of Parliament. However, it is in the gift of the Financial Secretary to decide when the existing watchdog will be abolished under the clause. Can he confirm that it will be possible for him to delay the commencement order in clause 52(b) if he wishesto do so?

Will the Minister give the Committee further illustration of the proposed timetable? Is it intended to abolish both bodies swiftly after the Bill is passed, or is there to be a longer implementation period? He will understand that a large number of staff not only of the ONS but of the commission will be affected. It would be helpful if he indicated the timetable for the replacement of the two bodies that are being abolished.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall begin by replying to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, and then I shall turn to the questions that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked.

The clause provides for the Office of National Statistics and the Statistics Commission to cease to exist as administrative entities. “Abolition” of the Office of National Statistics, as the hon. Lady put it, is rather misleading and inappropriate, because its functions and service will be carried out under the legal remit of the board, which will become the legal entity.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I concede that the use of “abolition” was infelicitous.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I have trouble saying that word, let alone understanding its proper application. However, I accept the hon. Lady’s point.

The board will assume all functions that the Office of National Statistics undertakes, with the exception of the civil registration duties. I am not sure that “abolition” is entirely appropriate or that it pays due recognition to the role of the Statistics Commission. Its work has paved the way for the Bill, its responsibilities will be assumed by the board, and the commission has contributed a great deal to our understanding of how important it is for the statistics system to evolve.

I join in paying special tribute to the chairmen who have served the Statistics Commission and to their work. Over the seven years of its existence, they have consistently produced high-quality, wide-ranging research and reports, which have greatly added to our understanding of how the system has worked, and have given us ideas about how to fashion it in the future.

We have made it clear before that the property rights and liabilities of the ONS will transfer to the board. Any statutory references to the ONS will be amended after Royal Assent so that they refer to the board.

In response to the questions that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked, I have in earlier discussions about the Bill been clear that at an appropriate point during its passage, I shall consider the appointment of a chairman to the shadow statistics board, allowing him or her to start without delay preparations to put the board in place. I shall do so without offending any propriety of this House or of the other place. However, all hon. Members will agree that the current shape of the statistics system will not benefit from undue delay, and if we can move properly to ensure that the transition is as rapid and as smooth as possible, we should.

I have also been clear that if Parliament assents to the Bill, we want the board in place and in operation from April 2008. The Statistics Commission has already undertaken some useful work to prepare what it believes could form the basis of a code of practice. It will be one of the board’s responsibilities, and central to the operation of the new statistical system. The commission is undertaking important work with us to prepare to hand over its responsibilities to the statistics board.

The short answer to the second question askedby the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is that it is theoretically, legally and technically possible to delay the implementation of paragraph (b). However, it is probably most appropriate to ensure that the changes are implemented together, not least because the commission’s responsibilities will become the board’s and there is no obvious sense or gain in having two competing bodies with the same responsibilities. I hope that that is helpful to hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary first of all for what he said about the Statistics Commission and secondly for making it clear that different parts of this section could in fact be brought into effect on different dates.

I am not sure that he has gone as far as he can on the point about the watchdog. I am not sure that he fully appreciated what I was saying and perhaps I did not put it as fully as I should have done. If the new board comes into operation in April 2008, Parliament cannot set up a fresh scrutiny process. It cannot scrutinise a board that does not exist. If the Statistics Commission is abolished, therefore, in its watchdog function—I appreciate that some of its functions are transferring to the board— once the board begins its legal existence, as he hopes, in April 2008 there is going to be a gap in the scrutiny arrangements before new arrangements are put into place. I urge him, if he to reflect on that point. Parliament can scrutinise the statistics board only once it gets going in April 2008 and I still suggest there may be some merit in continuing the life of the Statistics Commission at least for the rest of this year so that we are not left with a gap when no one is scrutinising what is being proposed.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger, not uncharacteristically, on quite an important point, but I think he would accept that it really cannot be for me to propose or set the terms in which Parliament considers how it wants to play its proper role of scrutinising and holding the new system to account or indeed the pace at which Parliament considers that. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope, and I know from the interest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House takes in these matters, that such discussionsand any decisions that may be appropriate will not be left until the statistics board is up and running inApril 2008.

It also seems to me, although the hon. Gentleman may have greater experience and be able to contradict me on this, that Parliament can set itself up in any way that it chooses to scrutinise whatever it chooses. If Parliament decides that certain arrangements are appropriate for the new system, I can see no immediate reason why it should not set such arrangements up whenever it wished. Perhaps I am tempting fate, but it may well be that, if Parliament does that, it will take an active interest in scrutinising and holding to account the preparation that Ministers and others are making for the full operation of the new system that will, I hope, come into force, in April 2008.

I do not see the problem that the hon. Gentleman points to. Although it is not within my authority or remit to solve this, I hope that he will play his part in Parliament in making sure that scrutiny and accountability arrangements are in place in good time. I do not see the strength of his argument for prolonging the existence of the Statistics Commission when we will have in place a statistics board taking over the responsibilities of the Statistics Commission, with a much wider and more powerful remit to boot.

Clause 53

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Clause 53 deals with the legal transfers from the ONS to the board and may include the current property of the ONS. That gives us the opportunity once more to be clear about the property that will be transferred. We touched on this issue obliquely last Thursday—under your chairmanship, Mr. Olner—when we discussed the position of the staff and whether the London office, currently in Pimlico, will be retained.

I assume from the clause that the ONS headquarters in Pimlico will be transferred to the board, but there is uncertainty about how much of the London office will be retained. I understand that, at the time of the Lyons and Gershon reviews, the assurance was given that a London presence—presumably, a London property—would be retained after the move to Newport. However, I am not entirely clear whether those assurances still stand and whether the 100 or so staff will remain there after 2010. Will the Financial Secretary clarify whether the lease—or whatever it is—on Drummond Gate will be transferred formally to the new board and, if not, whether the new board will retain a London property?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

During our discussions on the previous clause—the hon. Gentleman might like to check this in the official record—I said that all ONS property rights and liabilities will transfer to the statistics board. Beyond that, decisions about how those properties, or any others, and the work force are managed will be matters for the ONS and, in future, the statistics board. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that those matters are not my responsibility.

Schedule 3

None

Clause 58

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move amendment No. 175, in clause 58, page 28, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—

‘(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the expenses of the Board shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament.

(2) The Chairman of the Board shall, for the financial year ending immediately after this Act has been passed and for each subsequent financial year, prepare an estimate of the six year rolling use of resources by the Board; and the Commission for Official Statistics shall examine that estimate and lay it before the House of Commons with such modifications, if any, as the Commission thinks fit.

(2A) In discharging its functions under subsection (2) above, the Commission for Official Statistics shall have regard to any advice given by the Board and the Cabinet Office.

(2B) The Commission for Official Statistics shall appoint a person to be responsible as accounting officer for preparing resource accounts for the Board for each financial year; and that officer shall discharge such other duties as the Commission may determine.

(2C) The Commission for Official Statistics shall appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor for the Board.’.

The amendment is linked to an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham commented earlier. It deals with the crucial matter of how the new arrangements put in place by the Bill will be funded. We propose to put the funding decisions in thehands of a parliamentary commission of the sort that was described and discussed in relation to earlier amendments. Two other bodies are funded in a similar way: the Electoral Commission and the National Audit Office.

It is obvious why the clause and the amendment are important: it is possible for funding arrangements to undermine measures that ensure genuine independence from political control. Therefore, the problem to be addressed is how to ensure that there are proper limits on and scrutiny of the budget, while preventing the ministerial interference that the Bill is designed to deal with.

We in the official Opposition believe that the best way to tackle that conundrum is to put the fundingin the hands of Parliament and have a direct parliamentary vote on it. That would create the necessary independence from the Treasury, while securing value for money for the taxpayer. Doing so would give the board the opportunity to work closely on its funding arrangements and have them scrutinised, agreed and determined by the commission that we want to set up.

The concern about funding arrangements possibly undermining true independence for statistical services was addressed by a number of stakeholders who contributed to the consultation and, probably, to the evidence taken by the Treasury Sub-Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. Certainly, the British Society for Population Studies emphasised that

“Arrangements should be made to avoid concerns about political manipulation.”

The British Urban and Regional Information Systems Association stated that

“the initial level of funding should be determined by a joint review involving Parliament”.

A similar comment was made by the fire and rescue statistics user group.

We tabled the amendment to answer the concerns of the stakeholders in the statistical community, who want greater parliamentary involvement in the funding process. Essentially, there is concern that the Treasury’s involvement in determining funding will lead to the Government determining the scope of additional work done by the ONS. The Economic and Social Research Council, for example, was anxious that the Government might push funding for statistical series that they wanted, but not emphasise funding for statistical series that they were not so keen on.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I want to understand the principle on which some of the hon. Lady’s ideas are based. Does she accept that statistics, as a general public good, should be principally funded by general taxation? If so, does she not accept that the Treasury, as the Government’s finance Department—particularly with its responsibility for value for money and accounting for the public good use of that money—should be involved in setting the budget, albeit on different terms than those suggested by the hon. Lady, as I haveset out?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I do not accept that the Treasury is exclusively qualified to carry out that task. The powerful joint commission of both Houses of Parliament that we propose could be equally tough in safeguarding value for money for the taxpayer. The Bill leaves such questions unanswered. It does not tell us about the special funding arrangements—to which the Financial Secretary referred on Second Reading—that should be determined by Parliament.

Although the Financial Secretary has made it clear that he is not prepared to accept our overall parliamentary model for the whole scope of the new structures, would he be prepared to consider other alternatives to increase Parliament’s involvement in scrutinising the funding and budget process?

Most importantly, the Financial Secretary has an opportunity to clarify how the five-yearly review to which he referred on Second Reading will operate. He could also reassure us that measures will be taken to avoid the politicised interference in the budget that, for example, the ESRC fears. We need a clear indication of how the new arrangements will work and how they will secure the genuine independence of the statistical services.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I have a couple of questions for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. First, will she say which other body has the sort of funding and scrutiny arrangements proposed in the amendment? Secondly, she said that politicised interference in the budget process is a risk that she is concerned about and that the amendment is intended to address it. Has the ONS or the Statistics Commission, to her knowledge, ever complained about such politicised interference in the setting of their budgets?

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

At a time when senior politicians of all parties are trying to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the amendment would give the Financial Secretary yet another opportunity to make his name in history as a great champion of the rights of the legislature by giving greater powers to Parliament. That would achieve the objective of rebalancing that relationship set out by the Chancellor in his recent interviews. Given that the Financial Secretary has let other such opportunities slip through his grasp, I hope that he might take it.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I should also like to support the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I will be interested to hear what the Financial Secretary believes is wrong with the proposal, because increased parliamentary scrutiny can only be a good thing in increasing public confidence in statistics. What is wrong with removing such powers from the Treasury? Unfortunately, whether the Financial Secretary likes it or not, there has been a perception in the past 10 years that the Treasury tends to be somewhat meddlesome. Would it not be good to increase the public’s confidence in the new body by supporting the amendment?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

There is a need for the amendment, and I wish to speak in favour of it. I am not sure whether it would be needed if the Government had provided much more detail and clarity on how the funding arrangements will operate. The Financial Secretary will know that that was a matter of serious concern tothe Treasury Committee, because he appeared in front of it.

The Treasury Committee stated in recommendation 21:

“It is important that the Government consider the detail of the process whereby the new statistics office’s budget will be set... We look forward to the Government producing detailed proposals, and recommend that it outlines these proposals in its response to this report.”

The Government did not do so. We also commented in recommendation 22 that there was little detail in the Green Paper and that

“the Government was unable to provide us with any further detail or clarification.”

Importantly, we went on to share not our concerns but those of the Statistics Commission—the Government’s own watchdog—and other statistical authorities around the world, particularly the chief statistician of Canada, that

“the proposals, as they stand, could undermine the new independent statistics office’s ability to determine its own work programme.”

That is why it is a matter of some regret that we have not yet heard details of how the new budget arrangements will be set. [Interruption.]

Bill Olner (Labour, Nuneaton)

Order. Will the person who is responsible for the device that is bleeping please stop it doing so?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

It has been a long time since the Green Paper, but all that we have heard so far is thatthe budget will be set according to a five-year programme—that is pretty sketchy detail to go on. For example, we do not know what will happen if the statistics board is unhappy with its budget. It is not clear who would negotiate with the Treasury on its behalf. That is one of the weaknesses of the Treasury retaining residual responsibility. The Financial Secretary could virtually argue with himself, rather than give authority to a different Minister to argue on the board’s behalf.

If the statistics board is unhappy with the budget allocated, it will be unhappy for the next five or six years—or for whatever the duration of the budget—during which time it will have little recourse. It might also be unhappy more generally, as we have indicated in earlier amendments, with the budgetary resources allocated to departmental statistical work. The Financial Secretary rejected our amendments that would have given the board more direct oversight of funding and staffing within different Departments.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, but I would not have do so if we had not been given such thin detail on how the budgetary process will work. The amendment is very useful because it gives the Financial Secretary the chance to provide that detail, for which we have waited almost a year.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Once again, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire tempts me, but I must say that my principal purpose in serving my constituency and in government is not to find a place in history. That is a matter for others.

I say to the hon. Member for Braintree that what is wrong with the amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is precisely what was wrong when we discussed the matter in detail earlier. His desire to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the system should be satisfied by the provisions in the Bill. They give Parliament the potential to play a much more active role. Again, we have discussed that at some length.

On the idea of a parliamentary commission for official statistics, I have said before that statistical production is essentially an Executive function and most appropriately located within Government, rather than Parliament. Statistics are a public good and serve a wide range of users. That view was supported during consultation and by the Treasury Committee report earlier this year. In addition, we considered and rejected the proposals published by the Conservative party. We looked to international experience and systems, and the only country in the world that we could find where the statistics system is the responsibility of the legislature, not the Executive, is Mongolia.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

But that model was promoted and supported by the Leader of the House in 1995.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

In 1995, we had virtually no system for securing the quality and independence of statistics, nor any reform of the system for decades. It was only in 2000, as part of this Government’s reform process, that we created a basis on which to build. In fact, that was the most thorough reform of the statistical system for nearly 30 years; it completely changed the system and the views of the way in which it needed to develop. If the hon. Lady wishes to take the matter up with the current Leader of the House, she will find that he is one of the strongest supporters in the Government of the Bill and its provisions.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

My hon. Friend mentioned Mongolia. Quite often in the Committee the evidence of the chief statistician of Canada to the Select Committee has been prayed in aid. Is my hon. Friend aware of any of the 14 legislatures in Canada employing a model akin to the one proposed in the amendment?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I well know my hon. Friend’s expertise and experience. He has lived in Canada and may even be a British and Canadian dual citizen, so he may know Canada better than any other member of the Committee. He is quite right that Canada has a distinct federal structure, but the federal responsibility of the statistician in Canada is quite different from the central statistical service function in the United Kingdom. As I have explained to the Committee before, there is no appropriate universal model when considering the reforms. Any country, with its different circumstances, history, forms of government and policy, will rightly and inevitably require a statistical system suited to itself. In the legislation, we are setting up an innovative system that is breaking new ground, and there is simply no automatic precedent anywhere else in the world.

On the proposal of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, we have discussed why both the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission in principle are not appropriate comparators. I did not merely refer to plans for a new way of funding the statistics board in the future, as she suggested, but gave a commitment on how the Government would do that. I gave a commitment to the House on Second Reading, on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks rehearsed again for the Committee the view on funding taken by the Treasury Committee. He will accept, I think, that the proposals for funding as they stood when the Select Committee undertook its inquiry, the Canadian chief statistician gave his evidence, the Committee reported and the Government gave their formal response are different from the ones that we have before us. Only on Second Reading, after the Committee reported and the Government formally responded, was I able to set out in more detail the commitments on funding.

For the benefit of the Committee, I shall clarify those commitments. To meet the key requirementsof the new statistical system of independence, transparency and flexibility, we will guarantee the board funding certainty over periods of five years, in direct contrast to the normal spending review period and process of setting such funding commitments. In addition, that certainty will be guaranteed through the setting of a transparent formula, so that annual resources are given to the board in each of the five years. Furthermore, funding for the census will also be set for a five-year period and integrated into the overall budget of the board. Parliament must then hold the board to account for the way in which it allocates and controls its resources, in the same way as Parliament holds the Government to account for decisions such as resource allocation. As I said, the role of Parliament in scrutinising the new system will be central, including in matters of funding and resources for the board. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment to a vote.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall turn first to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the nearest funding parallels are the Electoral Commission and the National Audit Office. The parallels are not exact, but they are useful precedents, having something in common with what is proposed here.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give specific examples of alleged political interference using the budget process. No, I do not have such examples and I made it clear that I was referring to the anxieties that people had expressed about the potential for such interference. My hon. Friends may come up with such examples, but I have not heard of any, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks is right to make it plain that the Treasury Committee and many people who gave evidence to it were very anxious about the issue. Again, it is a matter of perception; if people believe that there is potential for interference using the Treasury’s powers over the budget, it will diminish the strength of the Government’s proposed reforms.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, but he still has not responded to all the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, particularly about what the board will do if it is not satisfied with its budget, how the negotiations will take place and who will speak up for the board in negotiating with the Treasury. The Minister says repeatedly that Parliament will have the strongest scrutiny role in respect of the new structures. I welcome the rhetoric but I cannot see how Parliament’s role will be different in that context to scrutiny of any other non-ministerial department.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The case for a greater role for Parliament in scrutinising the operation of the new system is not just rhetoric; it is contained in and provided for in the Bill.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain again how Parliament’s role is different in that context from its scrutiny of the activities of any department.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

We have rightly heard much from the Financial Secretary in praise of the tremendous leadership of my hon. Friend the. Member for Sevenoaks in the Treasury Sub-Committee. My hon. Friend raised a number of pertinent points and recommendations made by the Sub-Committee, on which a number of us served, on this issue. Hasthe Financial Secretary followed up any of those recommendations?

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that question.

The Minister’s final point to counter the amendment was that statistics are an executive function of government. They are certainly important for the operation of government, but regardless of whether one sees them as strictly part of an executive function, that in itself is no reason why a parliamentary Committee cannot be in charge of the budget, whether or not statistics are part of the executive functions of government. How is that relevant in deciding which organisation should determine the budget and what the structure should be?

The Minister was disdainful of the model we propose, which he said had no precedent anywhere in the world apart from Mongolia. Although the Leader of the House advocated that model, a couple of minutes after referring again to the Mongolian example, the Minister went on to say that he is breaking new ground. When we challenged him on the structures proposed earlier in the Bill about the mix of executive and scrutiny functions he said that there was no parallel and that the Government were doing something completely different. International models to match our proposal may be limited, but he was unable to find any other model, either in the UK or across the world, that matched the structure that he proposes.

I am still disappointed that we have not had more detail on how the five-year funding formula will work. The Minister said that there will be a transparent formula, but who will set it? When will Parliament know what it is? Will it be subject to variations and modifications? Will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, if so, what sort of parliamentary scrutiny? Many questions are left unanswered, and I shall seek to divide the Committee on the amendment.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The longer the debate continues the more important my hon. Friend’s amendment appears. She has been making the case that it is not apparent how Parliament’s role will be strengthened by the Government’s proposals. Indeed, it is fairly evident that Parliament’s role in the statistical function of the budget process could be weakened.

Parliament’s job is not only to scrutinise the money; it is to vote the money. We will be confronted with a proposed sum that is fixed for five years. It is not clear how that will be increased year by year, but we have been told that there will be some form of indexation. Parliament will therefore have no role at all in modifying the amount to meet any new requirements that might emerge, to respond to the unhappiness of the board about its funding for the discharge of a particular function or to implement recommendations that might be made from one year to the next. The purpose of Parliament is to vote the money. If the Minister is proposing that that expenditure is taken outside the normal process of parliamentary approval and locked away for five years, it is incumbent on him to give us more detail as to how the budget will change year by year.

Clause 65

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We now turn to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with questions concerning the Registrar General and future provisions for the registration service, a matter that I am particularly pleased we were able to cover.

As I said on Second Reading, we are using the Bill as an opportunity to establish, finally, proper employment rights for registration officers in England and Wales. Currently, they are appointed and paid by a local authority, but can be dismissed only by the Registrar General. They do not, therefore, enjoy the rights and protections afforded to other staff, such as access to an employment tribunal. That has for some time been a great concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. The provisions in this part of the Bill are in no small measure due directly to his continuing efforts on the subject. He may well wish to add his own comments on that.

Registration officers provide a vital service that benefits all of us in the community. Almost all of us will come into contact with the registration service at some point in our lives—normally at the most important moments in our lives and the lives of our families. It is only right and proper that this group of workers is given for the first time the rights and protections that are already available to others.

Under the Registration Service Act 1953, the Registrar General for England and Wales is currently a statutory office holder, appointed by Her Majesty, with functions set out in statute. That has been the position since the post was created in 1836. The Registrar General has statutory functions relating to the civil registration service, but also has other, statistical, responsibilities such as conducting the census. Under the Bill, the Registrar General’s current statistical functions will become the responsibility of the statistics board. The Registrar General will remain as head of the General Register Office and will retain his or her responsibility for civil registration in England and Wales.

Clause 65 modernises the position of the Registrar General, who is head of the civil registration servicein England and Wales, by establishing him as a corporation sole. I concede that that does not sound very modern, but a corporation sole is an office occupied by one person that has a separate legal identity from the office holder. Also, the office continues to exist even if the office holder retires and is replaced, or if there is a vacancy in the post. Currently, the rights and liabilities of the Registrar General are personally held by the office holder on behalf of the Crown. Establishing the Registrar General as a corporation sole means that the rights and liabilities of the office of Registrar General are separated from the office holder and the rights and liabilities become the responsibility of the office, rather than the office holder. That means that in the future the Registrar General could enter into contracts in his or her own right and such contracts would be the responsibility of the office, rather than the office holder.

Separating the Registrar General from the National Statistician, and the General Register Office from the Office for National Statistics, will reinforce the ability of the Registrar General to operate independently, while still allowing the General Register Office to be incorporated into a wider structure if that is what is determined. I hope that the Committee will accept that that flexibility is sensible and desirable, given that the location of the General Register Office has still to be finally determined. It has been considered as part of potential machinery of government changes. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 65 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

It is strange how one gets involved in business in this place. In the mid-1990s, I was a director of the city challenge in Bolton and we were looking around for flagship schemes. I proposed to the then leader of the council, Bob Howarth, that we should bring back into use an old hall on a hill overlooking Bolton that was in a rather attractive park. The hall had been boarded up for several years. It had previously been a mill owner’s house. I proposed that we move the registration service in Bolton out of dreadful premises in the town centre—where the brides came out into patches of oil on a taxi rank—to that lovely old hall set in a beautiful park. That cost £1 million, but it was achieved.

The registration service there today supports a community centre, a hospitality suite with bars, and so on. I was pleased to hear that it celebrated its 10th anniversary last week and that Oliver Barton, who was the principal officer at the time, returned and helped them celebrate. I was pleased in one way, but not so pleased in another, when my eldest daughter, Sally, chose to get married in Mere hall—the lovely old hall that I am talking about—right in the middle of the election campaign, which brought me to the House in 1997.

When Joyce Quin, the former hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was promoted to the other place as Baroness Quin, the Society of Registration Officers was casting around for a new patron for England and Wales. It was no surprise, therefore, when my name popped up. I was initially pleased to be invited, because I thought that it was a great honour, but it soon dawned on me that the society was giving me a huge responsibility, because it was seeking to achieve what the Bill will, hopefully, bring about. It has taken 10 years of campaigning. I have lost count of how many Ministers I have met, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, with officers of the Society of Registration Officers and, latterly, Unison to try to bring about this measure.

It is odd that registration officers are appointed, housed and paid by local authorities and that their pensions are arranged by local authorities, but only one person—the Registrar General in Pimlico, London—has the right to dismiss them. When I began this campaign there was no right of appeal against dismissal. At least in the early days of the campaign we won the right of appeal, but appeals had to be heard by the Registrar General in Pimlico and he could hear them only on the basis of new evidence.

During my time as the society’s patron at least 18 members of the service have been dismissed—some of them under bitter circumstances that I do not want to relate.

Bill Olner (Labour, Nuneaton)

Dr. Iddon was just bringing his remarks to a close.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Mr. Olner, I will take the hint. I thought that it was very considerate of the House authorities to sound the wedding bells right in the middle of my speech. [Laughter.]

What clause 66 will do is transfer the employment of superintendent registrars and their colleagues to the employment of local authorities, which is what we have been campaigning for all this time. The Society of Registration Officers—SORO—tells me that it has historical records to suggest that this campaign has been going on for 60 years. I have documentary evidence to suggest that it started at least in 1985 in the House when an efficiency scrutiny was published which recommended this transfer of employment.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful in explaining the genesis of the campaign, which has resulted in this measure. As patron of the Society of Registration Officers, can he tell us what proportion of registration officers are members of the society and what other consultation took place with registrars who were members of Unison or other groups to ensure consultation across the whole profession?

Bill Olner (Labour, Nuneaton)

Order. The hon. Lady should not be tempting my colleague into talking about something that is not actually in the Bill.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I will give a brief answer. I cannot give a percentage, but I know that the figure is extremely high and that the consultation has been going on for as long as I have been involved with the campaign. There are one or two members of SORO who still recognise that the status of being a statutory officer is rather special, but frankly I think that it is an outdated status, and it causes problems. What we are doing in clause 66 is the correct way forward.

There is another difficulty in the transfer in that statutory officers, as registration officers are, do not have any official employer and therefore on the whole do not come under employment legislation. This area is a bit grey and rather complex, as the Library research paper suggests. Under some of the employment legislation they could be classed as workers, but there have not been many court cases to test this. Myself, Unison and SORO have campaigned on two parallel tracks, one of which has resulted in clause 66, and we have also campaigned with the Department of Trade and Industry to bring in section 23 of the Employment Act 2002.

This clause is a better way forward, as the Library research paper suggests. To apply section 23 would have left registration officers in that grey area and there would have been some court cases before it was illustrated that employment rights could be protected under the Employment Act.

I thank the Financial Secretary for taking on board what is essentially my ten-minute Bill from the last Session of Parliament. He has listened, and I am grateful for that, as are all the people concerned.

As I have mentioned, clause 66 and part 2 have the support of SORO and Unison. They also have the support of the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services and the employers’ organisation as well. One problem remains; because registration officers have no legal employer, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 do not apply to them. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Government have seen their way to build into clause 66 protection of all the employment rights of that group of workers. Incidentally, there are 1,700 registration officers—not a large number, but a significant one. The clause protects the employment and pension rights of those people when they are transferred. Their service will be seen as continuous, so that their pension rights will transfer into the schemes of local authorities, which in any case already organise their pensions.

It would be inappropriate of me not to thank Karen Knapton this afternoon. She has worked with me for many years as the honorary secretary of the Society of Registration Officers. She has now retired, and she would have liked to have seen this campaign bear fruit today. I am now continuing my work with Julie Hole, the present honorary secretary. I thank those people. I will be able to go to the conference this spring and give my 10th and valedictory speech—as Members know, I am retiring. Instead of trying to find excuses for the Government, as I have done at all my annual presentations in the past nine years, I will be able to go out on a high note. Bearing in mind what you said at the beginning of this part of the debate, Mr. Olner, I thank you for your patience.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I welcome the chance to say a few words about the employment status of registration officers in England and Wales. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the important work undertaken by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on the issue. As we have heard, he has been campaigning tirelessly for many years and he deserves a huge amount of credit for the measure.

The Opposition welcome the changes. We would have been happy if the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill had proceeded a few years ago. That did not happen, thanks to the late great Eric Forth. He, of course, had firm opinions about the use of private Member’s Bill time for Government business. We are delighted to see that the Government have used their own business time to propose the measure to regularise the employment position of registrars and superintendent registrars. It is clear that the law needs changing, and I would like to join the Financial Secretary in paying tribute to the work done by registrars at important and sometimes stressful ceremonies in people’s family lives. They deal with the public with great care and sensitivity. I would particularly like to single out the registrars working in my constituency in Chipping Barnet for their valuable work.

We support the move to make registrars local authority employees and to provide them with employment rights and protection. It seems not only sensible but just and consistent to bring the employment of registration officers into line with that of employees of local authorities. I am sure that the change will be welcomed by organisations that have long campaigned for it, such as SORO, Unison and the other organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

There is one point on which I seek reassurancefrom the Minister. I have received a representation from one registration officer who is unhappy with the Government’s proposals. She fears that the changes could remove one of the safeguards relating to the registration of deaths. Registration officers decide whether to refer a death to the coroner. The registrar in question is concerned that if registration officers and coroners become local authority employees, that will in some way interfere with the freedom of registrars to take a decision in the public interest. Since I have not heard from any other registrars on the point, it is reasonable to conclude that that is a minority concern, but because it has been raised with me it would be useful to hear the Financial Secretary’s view. Is he confident that the Bill will ensure that sufficient safeguards are still in place on the registration of deaths? Have such concerns been brought to his attention?

According to the Association of Registration and Celebratory Services, some concern has been expressed that registrars would suffer a loss of independenceif they became local authority employees. My understanding is that such concerns seem largely to have been laid to rest and that the reform is broadly welcomed not just by members on both sides of the Committee but by a significant majority of registration officers. We welcome the proposals and would be grateful for clarification on the points that I have mentioned.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, on the wonderful work that he has done on this matter. Will the Financial Secretary clarify one point? Clause 66(8) defines a local authority. Will a unitary authority such as Wolverhampton, where my constituency is located, come under the rubric of paragraph (b), which includes in that definition

“a district council in England for an area without a county council”?

Wolverhampton city council is not commonly described as a district council, and a number of other authorities are in the same position.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

I join everyone else in welcoming the proposals and congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on his work in bringing them forward. It makes sense to deal with this matter at the same time as changes to the statistics system.

I wish to raise one issue—the possibility of a registration officer simultaneously holding theposition of deputy registration officer. I have had correspondence, I suspect from the same person as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I believe that this person holds the post of registration officer and is also deputy officer. Deputy superintendent registrars and deputy registrars are already local authority employees, so what impact will the clause have on people who hold deputy as well as main registrar posts? That relates to subsections (2)(c) and (d), which may well be clarified in subsections (5)(a) and (b), but it is worth putting the matter on record.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I shall first respond to the substantive contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. He gave an eloquent and rather moving account of his work and what has motivated it over the years. The progress that can be made through private Member’s legislation and the dividends that can come from persistent pressure are a testament to the role of Members of the House. His work on the matter is in the best traditions of the House and the role of Members of Parliament.

The clause will give about 1,700 registration officers status as local government employees. For the first time, they will have access to the tribunals, rights and protections that others have had for some time. My hon. Friend is right. I made sure that clause 66 ensured that registration officers’ existing terms and conditions were retained after the formal transfer of employment status. Not least as a result of his work, the proposals command the support of all bodies in this rather densely-populated field of local government organisations. I listened to him carefully, but am not sure whether he mentioned that Unison was strongly supportive of his Bill and his campaign to secure this new status for registration officers. When he goes to the annual conference of the Society of Registration Officers later this year, he can give it the good news and, I hope, convey the Government’s and the Committee’s good wishes. The society provides a vital service and the change in the clause is long overdue.

The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet have not been brought to my attention before. The registration officer who contacted her was concerned that registration officers’ important discretion to refer a death to the coroner for further examination would be affected. I see nothing in the legislation or the intention behind it to suggest that that would be the case. However, I shall double check and if I am wrong, shall let the hon. Lady and other Committee members know.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I should say that the provisions in clause 66 include a comprehensive list of all local authorities with registration functions. I think, therefore, that his concerns are covered. In answer to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, deputies, like registration officers, will indeed become local authority employees. In light of our debate, I hope that both sides of the Committee will give a good loud shout in support of the clause.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

On a point of order, Mr. Olner. May I pay tribute to you and your co-Chairman, Sir John? You have chaired our Committee flexibly and firmly and have helped to guide us in giving due scrutiny to all the provisions in the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Clerks for the advice that they have given to you, Mr. Olner, to us and to the officials. I pay tribute to the Official Reporters; some of the technical points that I have made might have been a bit obscure and hard to follow—as I daresay some of my arguments have been—but they have done a marvellous job. The same is true of the police and the staff of the House, who have ensured the smooth running of our proceedings during the past two weeks.

I also pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople: the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet, for Fareham, for Twickenham and for Falmouth and Camborne. I also thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who represents both his Front Bench and his Back Bench in the Committee. Minority parties do not always take their place in legislative Committees. He is not in his place this afternoon, but he is particularly assiduous in carrying out the duties for his party on the Treasury brief, and I welcome his interest in serving on the Committee, not least because of Scotland’s decision to be a full part of the Bill, which is equally strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, who is in his place this afternoon.

I am also grateful to all Back-Bench Members of the Committee. They might not make the Minister’s job easier, but I welcome the contributions from both sides of the Room to the scrutiny of legislation in Committee. At the profound risk of singling some out but not others—it is like judging a beautiful baby competition—I must say that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks has brought to our proceedings his usual forensic examination of the Bill. He chaired the Treasury Committee’s inquiry, has spoken widely at conferences and to interest groups, and is therefore highly knowledgeable on the subject.

I must also mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. He has brought to our deliberations the passion that he showed in government for the people responsible for policy and public services locally. He has been clear in insisting that we use the new statistical system to recognise their role and to help them play it better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has worked for so long and pursued so many paths—and Ministers—to put the employment of registration officers on a proper footing. I am pleased to be the Minister who is finally able to do so, not least because it will save so many of my colleagues from his assiduous attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, has played a necessarily low-key role in the Committee’s proceedings, but one that is vital and appreciated by any Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has contributed with his usual attention to detail, both of the Bill and of debates, and is a lesson to us all in providing active Back-Bench scrutiny of legislation. This is the first such Committee on which he and I have served together in which he has not mentioned the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, except when I mentioned them first. If he wants to correct me, I will check the official record to see whether I have made a mistake—on second thoughts, I will not, but I guess that he might.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

Will the Financial Secretary giveway? Is it the first time that the hon. Gentleman has supported the Government?

Bill Olner (Labour, Nuneaton)

Order.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We are looking at a first for the Bill in other ways. The hon. Member for Twickenham declared himself “quite overwhelmed” by how, for the first time in 10 years, he has tabled an amendment that has been accepted. Once again, I am delighted to be in a position to make the hon. Gentleman so happy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough helped to establish a new parliamentary protocol on the acceptable use of a word as a noun rather than an adjective for the contents of the sewers of Slough. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire broke new ground too, when he proposed incorporating two minutes on the naughty step as a sanction for board members. I have persuaded parliamentary counsel to have another look at the concept of misbehaviour, but they regarded that as a step too far. [Laughter.] I am glad that the members of the Committee are still awake after our long proceedings—that was a little test for my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.

On a slightly more serious note, we have a parliamentary first for the Committee—ours is the first Bill under the new Public Bill process, by which we have resolved to take in and publish written evidence. I am slightly disappointed that no written evidence has been submitted for us to publish, but I guess that it is early days for the new system.

The Clerk described this part of our proceedings as Oscar-winning stuff. In that vein, I wish to point out that I have refrained from mentioning my mother-in-law or, indeed, Mrs. Gauke. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West have done an excellent job of keeping us on track, in making sure that we have given due scrutiny to the Bill but in an efficient way. I have particularly valued the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West. In my own small way, I have returned that favour by dropping him a note to ensure that he knows exactly which way to vote on Report.

Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Olner. I should like to join the Financial Secretary in thanking you for your excellent stewardship of the Committee and in putting on record our thanks to your co-Chairman, Sir John. I should like to thank, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham for handling the Bill from the Front Bench for me, as well as the team behind me: my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for South-West Hertfordshire. I am delighted that Mrs. Gauke’s name is finally on the record; I was going to ensure that it happened, but the Financial Secretary got there first.

I particularly welcome and agree warmly with the tributes paid by the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who has brought rigorous scrutiny and huge expertise to the Committee’s deliberations. He has played an extremely strong part in the scrutiny process. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his usual forensic scrutiny, not only of the Opposition’s activities but of the Government’s.

Turning to the Financial Secretary, much of what he has told us in Committee has provided welcome clarification. As he will be aware, there are a number of points on which we will continue our campaign to strengthen the Bill, but we have been able to clarify some points in an important way.

I, too, welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham and his moving address to the Committee after his amendment was accepted. I recall that I had about 30 amendments accepted to the Finance Bill last summer, but it takes a while for such things to happen.

I should also like to place on record my thanks to the Clerks of the Committee, who have done an excellent job, to the Hansard writers, the police and the staff and to the unmentionable—the Whips—who have done an excellent job in managing the business of the Committee.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Olner. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and myself, I thank you for your support and for ensuring both that we got through the Bill in a timely way and that sufficient scrutiny was undertaken. At times, debates on some groups of amendments became complicated, and we appreciate your guidance, which was essential in ensuring that we kept in order. We also appreciate the effort that the Clerks made to keep up with our ramblings. I also thank the Official Reporters for their help, and I thank the police and staff of the House for making sure that everything proceeded smoothly.

If it were a beautiful baby competition, everyone would have gone home with a prize for their contributions. We have had some interesting debates and we have covered a wide range of issues in the past couple of weeks. The Financial Secretary has been helpful and productive in dealing with the matters that Liberal Democrat Members have raised. That may be why my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Twickenham was so moved; it sounds as though he gave something akin to an Oscar acceptance speech. I am sure that he treasures his amendment being agreed to more than he would treasure an Oscar.

I thank the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Fareham for being so co-operative. This has been a fairly smooth Committee. We have discussed some serious matters, but they have all been dealt with well. These proceedings have led to a first for my hon. Friend and a first for the Committee in terms of the submission of written evidence, and I hope that both precedents will be followed by many more successes.