Speeches by Campbell-Savours.

“I am sure reading it will give you a lot more information than I have about its contents, so I would suggest you do.”

“While we are in this section on oversight and accountability, I just wondered if the panel were aware of the UCL Policy Lab report that was produced recently? It looked at a sample of arm’s length bodies—I do not believe any of yours were a part of that work—and describes what it viewed as “Inadequate institutional def…”

“Did you give any thought to the potential implications of the split on the independence of the UK statistics?”

“I will be honest: in the exchange on questions, I felt like what I heard from the Minister was not quite what was reflected in the narrative. I wonder if I could ask him one more question, just to clarify.”

“Indeed.”

“Thank you for that. I admire and fully support your determination to see parliamentary questions of the highest quality. I just felt that perhaps we had been slightly unfair in that last exchange.”

“There was a suggestion that the approach to answering questions might be that the statistics are applied and a narrative, chosen by the Minister answering the question, is provided alongside them. I am not sure that that necessarily means that the narrative would be counter or contradictory to the ONS narrative. Could …”

“Okay. You may correct me again, but our Committee had identified issues around accountability, which we felt that this job description may have exacerbated—a suggestion maybe that we were not setting leaders up for success. Do you think it is clear who is actually in charge of ONS?”

“It may be a misconception on the part of myself and others on the Committee, but I am not sure we are clear where the legislation gives you that role as a line manager. After today, would you be able to provide us with some clarity on where the legislation gives you that role?”

“Not through bitterness, we have noticed that the spec makes the postholder directly accountable to you and makes zero reference to accountability to the UK Statistics Authority. What was the thinking behind that?”

“Despite us having a ministerial commitment that we would see a draft spec before the post went live, I do not believe that we have. Is there a reason why?”

“As I understand it, the national statistician role was advertised last month.”

“Did an independent panel have a role?”

“It is my understanding that the appointment was made by the Cabinet Office rather than by an independent panel. There has been a direct approach. Is that the right way to approach an appointment of this nature?”

“Senior leaders were held back from moving from different organisations. Did you find it frustrating that particular candidates could not come and join?”

“So it was not that some of the cultural issues that this Committee has touched on over the course of this investigation have scared people off wanting to join the ONS?”

“Given that there were only two candidates, one of which withdrew, and you had to approach Mr Tierney to take on the role, do senior leaders view the ONS as an attractive place to work?”

“How many people applied for the generalist post, how many were shortlisted and how many were deemed appointable?”

“Are we right in understanding that the split of responsibilities between the national statistician and the permanent secretary was not clearly defined for several months after Mr Tierney’s appointment?”

“Should we take it that there is an ambition to reunite the roles, or is it very much a monitor and see affair?”