Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1320-1339)
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND SIR
BRIAN BENDER
KCB
5 JULY 2006
Q1320 Mr Newmark: He has not commented
on it though, I think. It is just telepathy between the two of
you?
Sir Brian Bender: From when he
answered the last question. The role of the Civil Service is to
provide policy options for ministers, based on the general direction
they have set, and those policy options need to be based on evidence
and then there need to be, if you like, a risk analysis, pros
and cons. Clearly, stakeholder reaction needs to take place, the
stakeholder view, the external view of the impact is a fact that
ministers will need to weigh out. The role of the Civil Service,
if you like, is to speak truth unto power, provide the material
for ministers and then ministers make the decisions. I do not
actually see an incompatibility.
Q1321 Mr Newmark: Let me give you
an example of what somebody said. Norman Glass, who is Chief Executive
of the National Centre for Social Research, commented in oral
evidence on the fact that "in many cases the cycle of scientific
evaluation and the political cycle do not match." He said
there were "endless cases where [the Government] set up pilots
and by the time the pilot was ready the policy was already being
rolled out across the country." Is that a fair analysis?
Sir Brian Bender: I recognise
his second point but I do not see the link with any electoral
cycle.
Q1322 Mr Newmark: There are pressures,
as one is coming towards the end of a term, to push ahead with—I
can see the master wants to give the answer for you.
Mr Darling: He will be in complete
agreement with this point as well. Let me give you an example,
because you have asked me from time to time about my ministerial
experience. We carried out a pilot as a sort of precursor of what
is known now as Jobcentre Plus and we brought together the benefits
side and getting people into employment. When I became Secretary
of State, the thing was just running, I formed the judgment, based
on the evidence I had seen and also coupled with a political conviction
it was the right thing to do, that we should go out and roll it
out across the country. It is now substantially rolled out and
I defy anyone to tell me to go back to the system we used to have
in the past. The whole way of dealing with helping people get
into work has been transformed. That is an example of where, at
the time, there were people who said "The pilot isn't finished,
you haven't had the evaluation," and it was not anything
to do with electoral politics, because I was never going to do
it before that election, or indeed actually the one after that,
although it will be all done, I think, by the time of the next
one. That is an example surely of where we, as politicians, are
elected by people to make a difference, to make things happen;
we look at the evidence, but there comes a time when you say,
"You use your judgment." There could be other things
where there is evidence that something works, or, for perfectly
good policy reasons, we say it is not the thing we want to do.
Q1323 Mr Newmark: That may well be
a good example where perhaps it has worked; are there examples
where, in your experience, it has not worked?
Sir Brian Bender: I cannot think
of specific examples off the top of my head. It does seem to me
that, again, it is incumbent on the Civil Service that if we were
in the hypothetical situation you described and—
Mr Newmark: No, I am asking not for a
hypothetical one, but where someone in Government has gone ahead
of what is actually out there as a pilot programme.
Q1324 Dr Harris: NHS Direct?
Sir Brian Bender: I have not been
involved myself in an area where the minister has wanted to proceed
and I have felt it was unwise to proceed because the evidence
did not back it. Indeed, if we were in that position then we would
be beginning to get into Accounting Officer territory, because
I might have to advise the Secretary of State that the evidence
does not exist and therefore I am not convinced it is value for
money.
Chairman: David, can you think of any
area where policy has moved forward without the evidence base
to support it?
Q1325 Bob Spink: What about Sure
Start?
Mr Darling: Sure Start has worked.
Professor Sir David King: I cannot
come up with a specific example.
Mr Newmark: Unfortunately, I am on two
select committees at the same time, so I am now going to have
to leave.
Q1326 Dr Harris: I will take over
though because I am interested in the distinction between pilots
and trials, because I think there is a difference in public understanding
between something that is trialled, which I think does not commit
you as much, from something that is a pilot. Do you think there
is merit, Secretary of State, in making a distinction between
trialling something and piloting it, because piloting sounds as
if you are going to go ahead but you are just going to fine-tune
it, and that may be a reasonable thing to do, but sometimes it
does lead to the expectation that it might be pulled if it does
not work, and that is never going to happen?
Mr Darling: I understand the distinction,
but I am not sure that the public always make that distinction,
and I am quite sure that, in the House, for example, that distinction
is not made. I agree with you; but it ought to be possible, and
I think it is highly desirable, in some areas, that something
should be trialled and you ought to be able to walk away from
something and say, "Well, it didn't work." As you well
know, in politics that sometimes can be difficult, because people
say, "Ah, you've failed and the whole thing's a disaster,"
and so on. Yes, I do understand that distinction, but I suppose
it is a nice distinction. I come back to the point which I have
been emphasising throughout this hearing, you have got to consider
the evidence but, at the end of the day, ministers have to use
their judgment; that is what they are there for.
Q1327 Dr Harris: You make the point
that there is a political problem and I would make the point to
you that everything certainly that I feel that we have been saying
through our questions here to Government applies to Opposition
parties, and if only one side plays by the rules it does make
it unfair, it does not make a level playing-field?
Mr Darling: Even the Liberal Democrats.
Q1328 Dr Harris: Even the Liberal
Democrats, and colleagues will know that I hold them to account
on these issues where I can. Would you accept that if there were
some form, if ever it were possible, of cross-party agreement
at the highest level, to prevent the political subversion of genuine
attempts to try policies, or to recognise where the evidence is,
then that would be of benefit, and would the Government consider
initiating cross-party talks in order to protect the scientific
integrity, or the evidence-based integrity, of policies?
Mr Darling: Let me give you an
example: road pricing. If that is going to develop into a national
scheme it has got to be trialled locally, in a large part of the
country. For that to happen, really there has to be agreement
between the three major political parties that (a) you ought to
trial it, (b) let us look at the results and give it a fair wind,
and (c) if it works, well, maybe we will collaborate in bringing
the thing together. That is asking a lot. I have not been looking
at it for the last six weeks in detail, but to the credit of successive
Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen they were extremely
co-operative, so too were the different political parties that
control different councils in England, where we were looking at
those areas. There is an example of where the prize, if it succeeds,
is immense; if you get it wrong, yes, there will be a lot of egg
on face. It is to their credit, on that particular occasion, that,
so far, and I underline the words "so far," because
I have been in politics long enough to know that these things
do not hold indefinitely, we have got co-operation. If that works,
that will be absolutely superb, and I am quite sure that approach
could be applied in different departments as well. Pensions is
another case in point, where, frankly, unless there is long-term
agreement between the political parties it is going to be difficult;
energy is another.
Q1329 Dr Harris: Indeed, and public
health, the MMR vaccination is another example.
Mr Darling: Absolutely.
Q1330 Dr Harris: Secretary of State,
when you say something is value for money in Government, one can
often refer to the National Audit Office, if they have done an
independent evaluation. When Government says something is evidence-based,
to what independent organisation at arm's length from Government
can you point, to say "and they confirm that our view that
this is evidence-based, as far as it can be, is correct"?
Mr Darling: I am not sure that
you can, because very soon, rather than late, you will run into
people having looked at the evidence, formed a judgment and therefore
reached a policy decision; and I think you are asking a lot to
get someone, frankly, to audit ministers' judgment. The people
who really ought to be doing that are, firstly, the House of Commons
and, secondly, the electorate.
Q1331 Dr Harris: Not ministers' judgment.
I am sorry, I will be very clear, because I think I was clear,
and I hope the record will show this, not the validity of the
policy, that is not the question. When the Government says "This
is the policy and it's partly informed by evidence, although there
are other judgments to be made, and we believe that the evidence
supports this policy," that statement, not whether the overall
judgment is correct, because there are cost and political and
ideological issues as well, that the evidence supports it, that
it is evidence-based, could be put out to independent audit, just
like statements that "This is value for money, whether or
not we decide to do it for political reasons," one can have
the confidence of the National Audit Office?
Mr Darling: Various decisions
are reviewed, one way or another. What I question is whether or
not it would be wise or what value there would be in setting up
a sort of NAO equivalent that reached a view on what particular
evidence ministers happened to look at. Ministers can look at
a whole body of evidence and decide to accept some and reject
others.
Q1332 Dr Harris: Yes; let me suggest
what the value is. If you want to have support and not have the
evidence questioned, because you want a poor policy-making process
to have integrity at least in respect of that which is supposed
to be based on science, then it might be of benefit if an independent
body said, when the Government says "This is the evidence
we've looked at and we think it backs this policy," for someone
else, separate from the Government, independent of the Government,
to say "We agree that is a fair reading of the evidence they
considered and the evidence they considered was a fair judgment
of the evidence available at that time." I think that would
help you in having confidence?
Mr Darling: I have my doubts.
I also have my doubts as to whether or not it is possible to get
somebody who was so distant, so impartial. Auditing of things
is rather different. Take the energy review, for example. When
I make the Government's proposals, I will be able to say, "On
the evidence we have looked at, these are our conclusions."
I am quite sure there will be others who will look at the same
evidence and come to different conclusions from mine, and both
of us will be able to point to things, no doubt, in support of
our proposition. I just have my doubts about setting up another
level of bureaucracy to look at these things again. At the end
of the day, if we get it wrong, we are held to account in Parliament,
but, ultimately, we are held to account by the electorate.
Q1333 Dr Harris: In clinical practice,
this happens all the time, day in, day out, week in, week out,
month in, month out; there is an independent, academic assessment
of the evidence base for clinical practice. I still do not think
you have given me a satisfactory reason why, as far as it can
be, that cannot be attempted in policy-making, where the Government
says "We have evidence on our side"?
Mr Darling: It is not, essentially,
I do not agree with you, and I know that, in clinical practice,
you accurately describe the position, I am just not persuaded
of the case for setting up the sort of body that you have in mind
in relation to Government.
Dr Harris: Can I ask you, Sir Brian,
what you are getting out of CRAG?
Q1334 Chairman: Can I say, just briefly,
to you, David, should that not be your job, to be making sure
that the evidence base on which Alistair makes the proposals to
the House of Commons, in terms of the energy review, stacks up?
How you interpret it is different, but at least the facts behind
that evidence are there?
Professor Sir David King: I do
not think that is quite the question that was being asked, but
in terms of the evidence itself, the evidence base, that is certainly
my job, and whether it is energy review or preparations for a
flu pandemic it is my job to go in and challenge the evidence,
see that it is robust before it goes up to ministers. I do carry
that function through, but that is not, I think, quite the question
that was being asked.
Chairman: No, it was more independent,
but I just wondered whether you do that.
Q1335 Dr Harris: Can I ask if you
consider yourself independent? If you do consider yourself independent
then it seems to me that the Secretary of State has just decried
part of what you have told us earlier is your job, because I think
he just argued that he did not see that there was a point in having
a mechanism to do that, but that is what you say you do?
Professor Sir David King: I must
apologise, because I think I misunderstood your question. If you
were saying how is the evidence that is produced to a minister
validated then I think the answer is we have an internal challenge
process and, yes, I do see myself as an independent Chief Scientific
Adviser within Government, for precisely that reason. If your
question was does the deduction of the minister, from the evidence,
stand up to external survey then, of course, that is not my function.
Q1336 Dr Harris: It was neither of
those two; it was asking whether his statement that the policy
is evidence-based stands up to scrutiny, and that is a third and
different point. My point to you, Sir David, is that if an opposition
political party came up with a policy, said it was evidence-based
and then had the ESRC or an academic team confirm that it was
evidence-based, would you not be concerned, if that had more credibility
than one of your ministers saying "We've got this policy,
we think it is evidence-based, but no-one independent is going
to judge whether it is fair for us to say it was evidence-based"?
Would not that concern you?
Professor Sir David King: Can
we try perhaps to overcome misunderstandings, and if I could try
to make an absolutely clear statement. It is my function to see,
when an energy review is conducted, that it is robust, and I will
bring in external people to help me in that process. I am not
the expert in avian flu, or every other subject, but I am able
to judge the quality of the advice being given with the help of
those experts, and that is what I do.
Chairman: Can we move on to CRAG then.
Q1337 Dr Harris: What I was asking
earlier was what are you achieving through the Coordination of
Research and Analysis Group?
Sir Brian Bender: Can I begin
perhaps by describing why it was set up in the first place, which
was a perception, based on a number of reports that had been done
over quite a time, that, first of all, the different streams of
analysis were not being joined up as well as they should be. I
referred earlier, for example, to science, economics, statistics,
social science, and so on, and too often the analysis has been
done in a silo-like way, but then, even more importantly than
that, it was not being joined up with the demand for the analysis
across departments. It comes back to some of the earlier questions
that we were answering on the cultural issue. It was designed
to try to bring together both the supply and demand of analysis,
and therefore it is a group that has on it the heads of the professions
of the various analysts in Government, including David King, Sue
Duncan from social science, and so on, and a number of strategy
and policy directors from across Whitehall. What it has been doing
primarily up to now is more task-based, so we have identified
three or four themes from a seminar that we held in 2005, where
we thought it was useful, subject areas where we thought it would
be good to get joint analysis done because there was a demand
for it. Two in particular I can mention. One is migration and
the second is globalisation. Having identified those, we have
then identified lead departments to take them forward, so the
work on globalisation is being led from DTI, Treasury and Foreign
Office jointly, and it is bringing various forms of analysis together
with what people think the problems may be, and some outside people.
The one on migration is being led from the Home Office and the
Foreign Office. We do some particular task-based work, and from
that we are bringing out some of the benefits of actually what
cross-cutting analysis should do, the benefits of that, and improving
in a handful of areas cross-cutting work itself.
Q1338 Dr Harris: Do you publish the
minutes?
Sir Brian Bender: I do not think
we do. I do not have any particular problem; they are not very
interesting, as minutes, and certainly I would not have any problem
with disclosing them if there was an FOI request on them.
Dr Harris: Thank you.
Q1339 Dr Iddon: This is a quote again
from Norman Glass, the Chief Executive of the National Centre
for Social Research, who said the old Civil Service phrase that
eggheads, or boffins, should be on tap, not on top, was still
very much alive in today's Civil Service. Do you think that is
the case?
Mr Darling: Who are you asking?
Dr Iddon: Whoever wants to answer.
|
