Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-143)
PROFESSOR DAVID
RHIND, SIR
DEREK WANLESS
AND MR
RICHARD ALLDRITT
7 JUNE 2006
Q140 Mr Newmark: No, you said something
important which I think had to do with an implication that there
was some sort of misbehaviour, almost, by ministers in using information.
While I appreciate there may not be a specific code of practice,
there has to be some form of code of behaviour within which ministers
are expected to behave when they receive certain bits of information.
When we had a meeting here on 24 May, we were given some pretty
good examples of the abuse of the system in which there was some
softening up process. I am curious on your thoughts on that. I
appreciate the point you made. You said "accidental premature
release of data . . . . by non-statisticians . . ." but my
gut reaction—and I think this comes back to public trust
in statistics—is that there is some sort of ministerial
interference that goes on in manipulating figures and trying to
get them out earlier, rather than what I would call the professionals
within the Statistics Office. I am curious as to what your perception
at least is of that perception of mind and the public's.
Professor Rhind: The important
thing is to get ministers to accept that no political capital
should be made out of statistics before they are in the public
domain. We recognise, of course, that—
Q141 Mr Newmark: You must admit it
has been going on.
Professor Rhind: I think there
are many cases where there have been representations of the statistics
saying one thing—and often before the statistics have come
out in the public domain—and in many cases statistics have
come out, we think very unfortunately, without some form of statistical
commentary accompanying them. We do not believe that simply releasing
statistics, perhaps with one or two technical footnotes, is enough
in all of this. We believe the statisticians should accompany
their statistics with some sort of statement, perhaps using their
best judgment, which says that the trends in this data are such
that, given the area that we know will be in the data, you cannot
say that this is a complete change one way or another. Certainly
we do not think statisticians should stray into policy areas,
but we think they have a real need to say something about the
quality of their data. A combination of that—more explicit
statements and better release practices—and a code which
applies not just to statisticians but to all members of departments,
including ministers, should make the situation somewhat better.
Q142 Mr Newmark: Effectively, shrinking
that time horizon should reduce abuse of the system perhaps. Is
that what you are saying?
Professor Rhind: Certainly shrinking
the time horizon would be a helpful contribution, but what we
do not want to do, of course, is to make matters impossible for
people, so that is why we have given some more thought to the
sorts of mechanisms that I have enunciated a few moments ago.
Q143 Chairman: We are at the end
now. Sir Derek, you have been very patient and quiet, but I just
want to get your views and experience of that central issue at
the beginning of the need to have a board that is independent
of the provider. How strongly do you feel that, Sir Derek?
Sir Derek Wanless: I feel that
when we have raised our legislation proposals we have used the
best solution for the UK now. It is not the only solution, and
structural solutions of that sort do not solve problems, it is
about the people who are operating, but there will be tensions
in the single board which will be difficult to manage and may
well not address the central issue, which is the one of public
trust: because the issue that we thought of as we went through
this was the issue of trust, and issues like pre-release matter
enormously in terms building trust. Issues like the role that
the board would have if its functions were much clearer in terms
of scrutiny, it would then be very much clearer for that board
to make authoritative statements to you, to other Parliamentary
committees and for those committees then to deal on the basis
of those statements, provided that the group had all the facilities
which made it possible for it not just to rely on self-assessment,
which is essentially what we have been having to do since we have
existed, but rather in terms of a full audit of why things have
been done the way they have been done and why they were published
in the way they were published. So, we have tried to produce not
the only solution but the solution best fitted to what we need
now.
Chairman: Good. Thank you very much.
|
