Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-167)
MR ROB
WISHART AND
PROFESSOR DENISE
LIEVESLEY
7 JUNE 2006
Q160 John Thurso: I may have this
out of context, but you have said in your paper that on topics
where statistics are devolved there is little appetite amongst
Scottish users to engage in UK structures and, indeed, little
cause. As I said, I am trying to find out what people think. There
is absolutely no criticism implied in any way. Given what you
have just said and that statement, could you flesh it out so that
I understand it?
Mr Wishart: Yes. Therefore, talking
about education statistics, users of Scottish information have
a set of needs, some of which will be the same as users in other
parts of the country. Since devolution, in particular, we have
done a huge amount of work to improve the range and quality of
statistics for Scotland on issues like education, and that is
about meeting the needs of people in Scotland and, indeed, any
clearly identified needs from elsewhere in the world for that
matter, but it is very much about understanding and responding
to the needs of users for better statistics on Scotland.
Q161 John Thurso: I think you are
making an excellent case. The sense that I am getting is that
the concordat would certainly benefit from revisiting and revision
in the light of nearly seven years of devolution, both for Westminster
discovering what it is like to have a devolved government and
for Scotland's discovering what it is like to have its own government
and to actually work out what should be the appropriate deliverables
that each set of users might reasonably expect.
Mr Wishart: I think there is no
doubt the concordat and framework need some updating, both in
the light of devolution, the experience over the last period,
but also the current issues.
Q162 John Thurso: I have one last
Scottish question, if I may, and it is not the West Lothian question.
In the 2001 Census those of us who live in Scotland were asked
quite a different set of questions about ethnicity and religion
than those living in England and Wales, and under proposals for
the 2011 Census, Scotland could again be putting forward different
questions on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation which will
not be asked in England and Wales. What is the impact of regional
variations in the census questions on the provision of comparable
UK-wide statistics and do we need to actually promote more consistency?
Mr Wishart: As you may be aware,
the three Registrars General have, in fact, published an accord
which states the degree of co-operation and harmonisation which
they are seeking on the 2011 Census. Clearly, the census, as has
been earlier pointed out, is a substantial exercise and a costly
exercise. It is important that it meets the full range of statistical
needs that exist at UK level and within the UK. It very much then
depends on particular issues. Clearly, if you ask something in
the census about educational qualifications which are different
in Scotland, then the degree of comparability is going to be an
issue. Where there are classifications such as ethnicity, in that
case we are responding very specifically to quite vociferous comments
from ethnic minorities about the way in which they are classified.
That may or may not be the same as the way people wish to be classified
in England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland. In practice, though,
as I say, it does depend on the issues. The numbers of ethnic
minorities are smaller in Scotland and it may be that what we
work towards is a degree of harmonisation to allow comparability.
It very much depends on the issues.
Q163 John Thurso: Is funding an issue,
in the sense that obviously you are funded out of the block grant.
The more work you do, the more block grant you use, to a certain
extent, although very broadly. Should, therefore, there be a provision
at the national level, if at a national level there is a requirement,
that there is a method of paying you for that extra work?
Mr Wishart: That would be good.
I think it does vary again, but I do not think there have been
any demands made on us by the UK Government that we have not yet
been able to meet. If there was a massive increase in the statistical
requirements of the UK Government, then clearly, I think, financial
implications would need to be discussed, but I am not conscious
of that being an issue certainly in the recent past.
Q164 Chairman: Without pressing you
on the advice you may have given during this whole process, I
want to be clear. What you have been saying today is that, because
of the differences in Scotland and because your users have different
requirements, you really want to see the code updated and revised,
because of the passage of time and these new developments, rather
than moving to a Statistics UK model that would make everything
much more consistent and uniform?
Mr Wishart: No, what I was saying
was that I think the code needs to be updated, as, indeed, does
the framework. One of the options we are clearly actively considering
is continuation of the current system whereby we are part of a
UK framework and a UK code and our ministers have signed up to
all those arrangements. Continuing those arrangements through
the current changes in the UK Government is clearly one of the
options being actively pursued.
Q165 Peter Viggers: I would like
to ask about public confidence in statistics, which is very much
tied up by the use and possible abuse of statistics. How much
advance notice of official statistics do you give, respectively,
to your ministers in the Department of Health and in Scotland?
Professor Lievesley: The first
thing I would like to say is that we believe passionately in the
importance of the integrity of information and to have information
that is trustworthy and trusted. At the moment there is pre-release
access that is provided to ministers. It depends a great deal
upon the particular data that we are talking about. We have procedures
in place that monitor exactly who has access and for what purpose
and we keep under review that process. It is certainly longer
than the couple of days that has been described to date. I am
very pleased to say that, in my experience in my first 10 months
or so in the job, we have not had a major set of problems in this
respect. There has been one pre-release, one inappropriate release
of data, and I immediately put information on the public record
in relation to that, but in general I think that we have built
up a system where we manage the release of statistics and we also
manage a statistical analysis, interpretation of those data, which
is a balanced interpretation, that goes out as a press-release
with those data. Those are managed within the Information Centre,
so the Information Centre is ring-fenced in respect of that.
Q166 Peter Viggers: And in Scotland?
Mr Wishart: We work fairly closely
to the guidelines set out in the code of practice, which is five
days in normal circumstances and 40.5 hours for market sensitive
statistics.
Professor Lievesley: We also follow
the code of practice. We do not have any market sensitive data.
Q167 Peter Viggers: Let us not be
squeamish about this. I am not trying to make a cheap party political
point at all. I am speaking as a former minister. Selective use
of statistics is endemic in the system, is it not, as it stands
at the moment?
Professor Lievesley: Selective
use of statistics will always be endemic in the system. The point
is that we are putting data out into the public arena for people
to use in a variety of different ways, and I may not agree necessarily
with the use of data made by a whole variety of different people,
depending upon their perspectives. The point is that we actually
have procedures in terms of managing the integrity of what goes
out, so ensuring that the statistics go out in a transparent and
appropriate way and that they go out with our commentary on those
data, a balanced commentary on those data, not a political commentary
on those data, and so it is that that we are managing. Of course
there will be subsequent selective use of the statistics, but
what we are trying to ensure is that, when the data go out, they
go out at the same time to everybody with a balanced interpretation.
We follow the code of conduct. Were the decision to be made that
there was more restricted access, then we would follow that and,
indeed, our board has discussed the fact that we will have a very
robust reaction to any leaks that take place.
|
