Examination of Witnesses (Questions 144-159)
MR ROB
WISHART AND
PROFESSOR DENISE
LIEVESLEY
7 JUNE 2006
Q144 Chairman: Welcome to the Sub-committee.
Could you introduce yourselves formally, please?
Examination of Witnesses (Questions 145-
Professor Lievesley: I am Denise
Lievesley, I am the Chief Executive of the Information Centre
for Health and Social Care.
Mr Wishart: I am Rob Wishart,
Chief Statistician of the Scottish Executive.
Q145 Chairman: Thank you very much
for coming to assist us in our inquiry. One of the issues that
concerns us, obviously, is the previous strength of the system
as essentially a decentralised organisation. Can you still argue
that that outweighs the potential benefits from actually centralising
all statistical activity into one single office?
Professor Lievesley: I think we
do need to recognise the strengths of the centralised system,
the strengths in terms of the power and the confidence, the professional
identity of statisticians, the ability to manage the codes of
conduct appropriately. On the other hand, I think we also need
to appreciate that specialised agencies such as my own, the Information
Centre, can deliver greater benefits to users and can help those
users to make sense of an increasingly complex world. So, in the
case of my own centre, we build expertise in terms of health and
social care data, we have really strong links with both the suppliers
and the users of data, we are ensuring that the significant investment
in the IT programme for health is going to reap information benefits;
so there are strengths and weaknesses. Just as a comment, in my
previous job I was Director of Statistics in the United Nations
and for the last four years I have been based in Canada. Dr Fellegi
was a member of my governing board and I benefited enormously
from his wisdom. There is not, in fact, any such thing as a totally
decentralised system or a totally centralised system, there is
a continuum, and the counterparts in Canada in terms of much of
the health and social care information that we collect is not
the Statistics Canada but other departments in Canada. So, even
within a mainly centralised system, and certainly with Canada
being a federal system, there are fairly large provincial statistical
offices; so there are still benefits, particularly in terms of
the relationships to users and the specialisation of having a
more decentralised system.
Q146 Chairman: Rob Wishart, would
you like to add to that?
Mr Wishart: Yes, indeed, I fully
agree there are benefits in both. I think I would distinguish
between decentralised and devolved. Clearly, in our case, it is
devolved arrangements. The key benefit to us is proximity to policy
making, and that is a mutual benefit. I think we feel that we
can do a lot in terms of the relevance of statistics, ensuring
statistics are used effectively and, indeed, properly within government
and it is an important means of sharing knowledge. We work a fairly
integrated analytical services approach with economists and researchers,
so there is a considerable amount of interface. At the same time
the professional independence of statisticians remains important,
but these are the benefits from our point of view. I wholly agree,
there are considerable benefits of the centre and its specialist
expertise. Indeed, we have a microcosm of that within the Scottish
Executive where we have a central office as well as decentralised
units within the departments.
Q147 Chairman: You describe one of
the benefits as being close to ministers and the policy makers
in the Scottish Executive, but what is the converse of that? How
free are you from ministerial control or interference from the
Scottish Executive? How free are you?
Mr Wishart: We are free in terms
of the code of practice which safeguards the professional independence
of statisticians. Clearly, there are decisions that are made by
ministers in terms ultimately of resources, in terms of the scope
of statistics, but I would say that we enjoy a considerable degree
of professional independence and the full rigours of the code
are respected within the Scottish Executive.
Q148 Chairman: Who should you report
to under the new arrangements, do you think? The new National
Statistician, or somebody else?
Professor Lievesley: I currently
report to Parliament as the Chief Executive of the Information
Centre, and I believe that should continue.[1]1
I do have a board, an independent board that has been established,
which has a chair and five non-executive members who have been
appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission. They have the responsibility
for oversight and for scrutiny, and that board should have the
rights to call upon the National Statistician or the Statistics
Board to come in and to audit, to appraise our methods. I think
we should be open and transparent in terms of our professional
methods and they should have the freedom do that. Indeed, I think
also the Statistics Board should have the rights to determine
that they wish to carry out audits of the work carried out within
the Information Centre, but at the moment the procedure is that
we are an independent body, and I see us as continuing to be an
independent body but a very critical part of a coherent statistical
system.
Q149 Chairman: So the only change that
you would see in all this huge upheaval and new legislation and
everything else is that you would keep your independence but the
board would simply be allowed to organise your audit?
Professor Lievesley: We already
have very, very close co-operation across the statistical system
of a professional nature, and we have responsibility for following
the codes of conduct that are established by the statistical system.
Q150 Chairman: I understand that,
but what is the point of setting up an independent national statistician
if you are not going to report to him or her, if you are still
going to report, in this rather odd way, to Parliament? That is
what I need to get at.
Professor Lievesley: One of the
advantages of the decentralised system is taking responsibility
for the area of statistics that we have responsibility for so
we are accountable to a board that ensures oversight and scrutiny
of our work relevant to users and suppliers of our statistics.
Q151 John Thurso: Can I pursue that
point. You heard, I think, the evidence from the previous witnesses.
Professor Lievesley: Yes.
Q152 John Thurso: There was a preference
for a two-tier system, with one tier sort of being the referee
and the other tier, being the operator, as it were. Your board
does both, I assume. It is both the overseer and deals with the
operations. Is that correct?
Professor Lievesley: No, I have
responsibility for the delivery of the information services, so
it is a classic division within the Civil Service system. We are
actually a special Health Authority of the National Health Service,
but it is a classic division in that I have responsibility for
the division, for the delivery of the information services, and
I report to Parliament. My board has responsibility for ensuring
the accountability of the process, the probity of the process.
It has a number of committees. It has one of on information governance,
it has a risk and audit committee, and so they have responsibility
for ensuring that our work is of relevance to the broad community,
including the Department of Health, but the broad NHS and social
care communities, and ensuring that we have followed correct procedures.
I see the Statistics Board as being very analogous to the Information
Commissioner. The Information Commissioner currently has responsibility
for a whole network of really quite complex sets of legislative
procedures and good practice guidelines with respect to data protection,
data access, freedom of information. We have responsibility for
ensuring that we follow those procedures. At any point in time,
the Information Commissioner can come in and audit us with respect
to those procedures, either at the request of our board or because
they have received some complaints or have some concerns; so I
actually see it as being a very similar relationship in that respect.
I think where there is an addition is that, as an integral part
of a coherent statistical system (and we have talked about joining
up statistics across the devolved bodies but it is also important
that we do across the different areas of statistics), obviously
we have a responsibility for working with the National Statistician
to ensure that there is a coherent system, to work in co-operation,
to ensure that the National Statistician is happy, is content
with our priorities and our working methods.
Q153 John Thurso: Can I ask very
briefly how your board is appointed. What the appointment process
is?
Professor Lievesley: Yes, they
are appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission, and they are
not information experts, they cover a range of different areas
of expertise. We have a clinician, for example, we have people
from business, from commerce, we have a member from within government,
and those appointments are really in order to ensure that our
programme of work takes into account the user community and that
we are following proper procedures.
Q154 John Thurso: Mr Wishart, in
your written evidence you state that the Scottish administration
is responsible for statistics on all matters that are not reserved
in Scotland and which otherwise fall within its competence, which
obviously follows the 1998 Act. As Chief Statistician of the Scottish
Executive, what are the mechanisms in place to ensure that you
are accountable for the decisions you take and for the work of
statisticians across the Scottish administration, and, within
that, could you tell us whether you report to an oversight board
or anything like that in the same way?
Mr Wishart: My accountability
within the Scottish Executive is ultimately to the Permanent Secretary
of the Scottish Executive, and, in fact, it is through the head
of analytical services. Beyond that, however, I have professional
accountability to the National Statistician. The arrangements
for the Statistics Commission, in terms of their scrutiny role,
and, indeed, their full role, apply to Scotland as well and we
have extensive arrangements to consult users and providers within
and beyond government. That is obviously less formal, but those
are how we come to a view on needs.
Q155 John Thurso: You heard in the
previous evidence that the Commissioners expressed the view that
their kind of UK role, which you have just referred to, would
be very desirable to carry on with whatever the future holds.
Would you concur with that?
Mr Wishart: I think we would be
very keen to discuss the role of the new body in terms of Scotland.
I think the Statistics Commission themselves would happily say
that the amount of work that they have been able to do in Scotland
has been fairly limited. I think our ministers have confirmed
that they would support effective scrutiny arrangements, and I
think it is a matter of deciding what those most effective scrutiny
arrangements would be, but there are clearly benefits in a common
arrangement across the UK. Equally, it is important that the scrutiny
arrangements properly address all the issues that need to be addressed
in Scotland.
Q156 John Thurso: If I can give you
the background to all the questions I should be asking about devolution,
it is that I spent many, many happy hours up the other end in
committee stage on the Scotland Bill, as it then was, and I know
that a vast amount of detail went on and went through, and there
were certain areas we got wrong. Some areas we got wrong in that
we did not devolve things and we have subsequently devolved them
and some of the concordats and the cross border authorities. I
was fascinated to discover the devolution issues in statistics,
which I had been blissfully unaware of. I am just trying to understand
them. That was just to let you know where I was coming from. There
is no implied criticism of anybody; it is just a fact-finding
mission. In that vein, can I ask you, if the Government's proposals
are adopted in their current form, what do you think the implications
are for Scotland?
Mr Wishart: The implications for
Scotland? I think the major implication is that we will need to
review the arrangements currently set out in the national statistics
framework and in the statistics concordat in relation to the position
in Scotland and, indeed, the position between administrations.
We clearly are discussing these issues with UK government, and
those discussions will continue. At present, as you may be aware,
our ministers have set out an initial position, but there is a
lot of discussion still to be had.
Q157 John Thurso: I am interested
you say "our ministers". How much is this a ministerial
decision and how much should it really be a discussion between
professionals without, if you like, dare I say, interference from
policy-makers?
Mr Wishart: I think formally these
are decisions that require to be taken by ministers, and from
an official's point of view. I think it is important that we have
a system that ministers are confident in and that they will be
comfortable with and manage to adhere to. Clearly, we are advising
ministers on these issues, we are in discussion with our counterparts
in the UK and, indeed, in other devolved administrations. It is
substantially informed by professional issues, but ultimately
it is very clearly the position that these are decisions that
ministers will have to take, at least in the first instance.
Q158 John Thurso: Simon Briscoe,
in what has already been described this afternoon as his "colourful"
evidence to us (and I think one of the questions I asked him was
about the impact of devolution), made clear that the problem of
the fragmentation of statistics is not the cause of devolution,
but devolution has brought it into sharp focus—what existed
before has become more focused—but he did seem to suggest
that the statistics-gathering bodies in Scotland are now fairly
uninterested in doing anything that is not the remit of the Scottish
Executive and gave us the impression, to a certain extent, that
your colleagues and yourself more or less do not care what happens
at Westminster, that is for Westminster to worry about, which
seemed to be slightly odd. Can I ask if that was an accurate reflection
of your thoughts?
Mr Wishart: It seems slightly
odd to me as well. No, it was not an accurate reflection. The
paper that I presented to the Statistics User Forum is publicly
available and I am happy to make a copy available to you, but
it is on the web, in fact.
Q159 John Thurso: I have actually
got some bits of that. You have made quite clear where the divergence
is and you have made quite clear where the needs of ministers
in Scotland have to be met, all of which is absolutely proper.
I maintain that, as long as we are a UK and Scotland is not actually
independent, there is also a need to fit some figures together.
I give you two examples. One, which we have heard, is the indices
of multiple deprivations, where clearly it is very useful to be
able to have the same descriptive across all the nations. The
other is, if anybody ever decided (and I hasten to add I am not
making this suggestion, it is purely theoretical) to move away
from the Barnett formula and move instead to a formula that was
needs based on a much more regional basis throughout the UK, if
we did not have good statistics that fit together through all
the component parts, we would not be able to make good policy
decisions. Do you agree that there is a perfectly good requirement
for some devolved issue statistics to be collated at a national
level so that people can compare and contrast properly?
Mr Wishart: Absolutely. I do not
think you need to persuade statisticians that comparing sets of
numbers is a good idea. That is one of the things we like to do.
There is clearly a need for UK statistics and, indeed, comparable
statistics across the UK in terms of not just the countries but
the regions of England. We gain a lot from understanding the relationship
between Scotland and different parts of the UK. So, absolutely.
There are, in addition, well recognised requirements to meet international
obligations and there are a whole set of issues that clearly do
require statistics at UK level. So, there is absolutely no question
about the need for such statistics.
1 <ep1 Note from Witness: It should be noted
that I am also accountable to the Secretary of State for Health. Back
|
