Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
JOHN HEALEY
MP
14 JUNE 2006
Q240 Peter Viggers: Your repetition
of "national statistics" means, I assume, that you will
continue with two tiers of statistics. Do you think that will
help to promote confidence, or will that be a manner of retaining
confidence?
John Healey: Mr Viggers, I am
not quite sure what you mean or see as two tiers. The nature of
statistics is this, and actually it is much more varied than simply
two tiers. What are currently termed official statistics are essentially
the large number of statistics that are produced by government.
These are statistical outputs of a varying nature, from databases,
to management data that is in departments, to one-off research
projects, produced by government officials that are not necessarily
Government Statistical Service staff. It is very hard, first of
all, to define those and, secondly, to quantify them. Within that,
it is possible to identify and quantify the statistics and statistical
outputs of the Government Statistical Service. These number around
1,450. Within that, you have national statistics, identified and
designated as such, numbering around 1,180. They are possible
to define; they are possible to identify and, for the first time,
our plans are to require the board to ensure that these are assessed
and independently adjudged, to meet the provisions of the code
that it will be responsible for developing and maintaining. Within
that 1,180 of national statistics, around about 250 are produced
by the Office for National Statistics. In other words, you have
a very rich, wide-ranging and varied statistical picture in the
first place. The question then—about which I think you are
obviously, and rightly, concerned—is the question of scope.
Where in that range of statistics is it right to turn this particular
legislatively based attention? It seemed to us that the sensible
starting place was that 1,100-1,200 or so national statistics,
currently designated as such, because they represent the most
important sources of data that tell us what is going on in the
economy and in society, and tell us the degree to which government
is meeting the commitments and undertakings that it produced.
I would suggest to you that it is in those areas where the need
for most regular, robust and comprehensive statistics is required.
That is the reason we are suggesting that this is a system which
should have that at its core. Clearly, however, it is a system
that could evolve—including the scope and the reach of the
system as it develops.
Q241 Peter Viggers: Do the representations
you have received echo those that we have received, which is that
there should be a code of standards which covers all statistics?
I hear what you say, but I think that the world outside does not
understand the distinction between different kinds of statistics—and
neither do I.
John Healey: It is probably quite
hard to have a code of practice that covers absolutely any statistics,
any statistical outputs, or any data that may be generated within
government. I have tried to explain that. I think it is right
that we have an independently produced code of practice and that
a designated set of the most important statistics—in our
proposals the national statistics—are properly assessed
and adjudged to meet the standards of quality and integrity that
we want from them; done independently and under the auspices of
the board, and all entirely without the involvement of ministers.
Q242 Mr Breed: At the back end of
last year it was reported that the Treasury had reviewed the framework
for the national statistics. You did not actually publish that
review. What were the reasons for not publishing the review?
John Healey: The Chancellor's
announcement and the consultation document are precisely the output
of the review that we undertook, and the review that, when we
introduced the Framework for National Statistics in 2000,
we said that we would do after five years. In effect, therefore,
this is your review. This—Independence for Statistics—contains
our review of the performance of the framework over the five years.
Our plan is now to strengthen that further and entrench the independence
in legislation.
Q243 Mr Breed: Were there any recommendations
in that review that you decided not to take forward into the consultation
process?
John Healey: It was not a review
that produced recommendations; it was a review that allowed us
to assess the performance of the reforms that we put in place
in the year 2000 and, off the back of that, set out for wider
public debate and scrutiny proposals for strengthening the independence
of statistics still further.
Q244 Mr Breed: So there were no recommendations
as such?
John Healey: No, the recommendations
are set out in the proposals that are in here.
Q245 Mr Breed: Those are fully the
ones that were part of that review process.
John Healey: Yes, those are the
conclusions that we draw from the review that we have done; the
performance of the framework over the five years; the view we
now take of what needs to be done further and, for the reasons
I have explained, to entrench that independence in legislation.
Q246 Mr Breed: You have already said
that today is the last day and you are going to publish all the
responses to that review.
John Healey: Correct.
Q247 Mr Breed: You said earlier on
that you were perfectly happy with the independence of the drawing-up
of the statutory code of practice that would be drafted by the
National Statistician and approved by the independent board and
the parliamentary committee. It has been suggested to us by the
Chair of the Statistics Commission that, while ministers should
be consulted, the Commission felt that their approval was not
a "prerequisite". Are you quite happy that ministers
will not have any role in the drafting or approving of the new
statutory code of practice?
John Healey: I think the process
that we intend is very clear. This will be a code which there
will be a legal duty on this new board to develop and then to
maintain. In all likelihood, the preparation and drafting will
be led under the auspices of the Chief Statistician but it will
be for the board to direct that; it will be for the board to approve
that; and it will be for the board to modify that subsequently
as it thinks fit, depending on how it works. None of those functions
will be a matter for ministers.
Q248 Mr Breed: They will be consulted
obviously and therefore have their own views reflected into the
code of practice by the board as such, but they will have no direct
role as regards the drawing-up of the code of practice.
John Healey: No, that will be
a responsibility for the board. As I indicated earlier, I would
see a duty on it to consult, but consult widely and certainly
well beyond government, in its preparation and approval of that
code.
Q249 Kerry McCarthy: You have already
told us, Minister, that almost 300 of the statistics produced
by the Government Statistical Service are not designated as national
statistics. Then you have referred to these other statistics that
are produced by departments which are difficult to define or quantify.
Does it not concern you that so many statistics are beyond the
professional scrutiny of the senior statistical adviser and that
they will continue to be outside that regime, under the new proposals?
John Healey: The short answer
is no, it does not, as long as we have what generally would be
regarded as the most important statistics within the designation
of national statistics and within this new system, where they
are independently and properly assessed and then adjudged to be
of the sort of quality and integrity that we require of them.
Q250 Kerry McCarthy: In terms of
making that decision as to what is classed as a National Statistic,
is there not some conflict? We have heard evidence in relation
to the figures for NHS waiting lists, for example: that the monthly
statistics are not National Statistics and the quarterly ones
are. Do you think there is scope for reviewing what is designated
as a national statistic?
John Healey: I said earlier that
there is scope for the system to evolve, and I would see it in
these terms. First of all, in principle it is right that the decision
to want to see a particular dataset or production of statistics
designated as a National Statistic should rest with ministers.
In the end, we are responsible for the outputs; we are responsible
for the resources, the allocation of those, and the operation
of the departments that will produce them. That is the first thing.
The second thing is, with the added status that I think this independent
process will give to the nature and the confidence in National
Statistics, there will increasingly be—for ministers who
are concerned about the confidence people can have in the statistics
that cover the key areas of activity their department is responsible
for—an incentive for them to want to see them within the
system.
Q251 Kerry McCarthy: For example,
I think at the moment about 12% of the figures the Home Office
produces are National Statistics, and the Home Secretary said
to the Home Affairs Select Committee that he could not remember
a fact or figure that he had been given since his appointment
that was not "revised quickly within a very short period
of time". Do you think that this new regime will help restore
some of the confidence in the statistics that are being produced
at the moment?
John Healey: I think that it will,
because it is designed to do precisely that. Perhaps I can give
you a view from myself as a minister, irrespective of the Home
Secretary. If I am a minister responsible for a particular policy
area which is of great importance to me, to the wider department
or the Government, then I am likely to want to be confident about
the data that I get on what is happening, how it is being delivered,
and how it is being managed and monitored. In those circumstances,
you can probably see that there may well be merit and an incentive
for ministers to see whether they should be submitted—in
a sense that will be the process—to the board for inclusion
as national statistics. In order to be so, they would have to
be produced according to the code that the board will draw up;
they will then have to be assessed against that code. That assessment
function will be undertaken and the results reported directly
to the board, because it will be for the board ultimately to judge
and approve a particular statistical output or dataset as a National
Statistic. As the corollary to that, I would expect the board
to have the capacity—and it actually would in some circumstances
at some points—to withdraw designation of a National Statistic
if it does not judge the quality or integrity of those statistics
to be up to the code.
Q252 Kerry McCarthy: Could I ask
a few technical questions about the suggested new arrangements?
It says in the consultation document, "under the new arrangements,
the annual report would be laid before Parliament directly by
the board, rather than via a minister". How would that work?
John Healey: At the moment, the
Office for National Statistics, or indeed the Statistics Commission,
produce an annual report. It is a report formally to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. In practice, because the Chancellor delegates
his statistical responsibilities to me as Financial Secretary,
those are reports to me and then I lay those reports to Parliament.
What we are proposing is taking the ministers out of that reporting
and accounting process.
Q253 Kerry McCarthy: Is it not the
case at the moment that all papers laid before the Commons have
to be laid either by a Member or, in some instances, they are
laid by the Clerk of the House? So would it be via the Clerk of
the House? The board would present them through him?
John Healey: It could be done
in a number of ways. You will see that in the consultation document—having
declared as I did at the outset part of the intention of these
changes is for a more direct scrutiny and accountability function
in the role to be played by Parliament—in many ways it is
for Parliament itself, including a leading view from this Committee,
how Parliament wants to develop its own scrutiny and reporting
requirements of the new system.
Q254 Kerry McCarthy: You also say
in the proposals that responses to statistical Parliamentary Questions
"could be done via the Chairs of the committees responsible
for statistical matters". What is the thinking behind that?
John Healey: In a sense, that
is an idea we are floating in the consultation document to see,
in particular, whether there is a parliamentary appetite for altering
arrangements as they have always taken place. What is the idea
behind that? The idea is simply, again, to emphasise that we are
looking to take the practice and the perception of ministers being
involved in an accounting process out of the frame.
Q255 Mr Gauke: Can I turn to the
issue of which will be the leading department in this area? I
hear what you say about the fact that the Treasury has a lot of
experience with regard to statistics, and the nature of the Treasury's
activities. One could also argue that the flip side of that is
that a lot of the controversies over statistics relate to the
Treasury. Are you not in any way attracted to the argument of
the Cabinet Office having a role here, given that the Treasury
is a much more political, if you like, policymaking department,
as this Committee has heard, rather than the Cabinet Office which
has much more of a cross-departmental role?
John Healey: First of all, I do
not really accept your starting contention there. I said at the
outset that actually the hard evidence and the number of examples
where there have been abuses or short-circuits within the existing
system were very few and far between. You will know, Mr Gauke,
the Statistics Commission investigates apparent breaches of the
code of practice at the moment. In 2004-05 they investigated six—on
pre-release, for instance. Three of those were accidental; three
of them were contraventions of the code, but in each case the
Commission regarded that the steps that were being taken gave
them confidence for the future. On the issue about the Treasury
or the Cabinet Office, in the end I think that people will come
to their own judgments. I do not want to repeat myself, but we
have the experience of dealing with it. With statistics within
government, many of the statistics—particularly the Office
for National Statistics—the majority of the National Statistics
that they produce are economic. The importance of those statistics
and the frequency of them generally are higher than other departments.
Particularly in terms of the role the Treasury has within government
and across government for value-for-money concerns and performance
targets, the interest we have in the highest possible standards,
and the quality and integrity of statistics, means that we have
a very active interest in that.
Q256 Mr Gauke: If the drive behind
giving statistics more independence is apparently to improve its
credibility—I hear what you say about where there are breaches,
but if the drive is to increase credibility—would you not
recognise the argument that, where the Treasury is very often
in the middle of that argument, it is not an ideal position also
to be the department that is scrutinising the statistics? The
Statistics Commission, who you have referred to, have themselves
argued that consideration should be given to the Cabinet Office
taking over this area.
John Healey: I do not know if
implicit in your contention there is that you somehow give it
to a weaker or a less active part of government—which seems
to be implicit in some of the arguments some people are making
in this territory. In the end, I think that you deal with the
question of whether there is the right degree of independence
by setting up the framework, based in legislation, in a way that
ensures that there cannot and will not be any inappropriate interference—and
that is precisely what we are setting out to do.
Q257 Mr Gauke: If statistics were
moved to another department, do you think that would in any significant
way weaken the ability of the Treasury to dominate the Government?
John Healey: To dominate the Government?
Q258 Mr Gauke: To dominate the Government.
Do you think it is key to the Treasury?
John Healey: I would not suggest
for a moment, Mr Gauke, that we dominate the Government. We have
a very important role at the heart of government.
Q259 Mr Gauke: All right—to
influence other departments. Do you think it is significant?
John Healey: I think that you
would have to put that to other parts of government. Generally,
in my experience—and those of you round the table who have
been ministers would recognise this—performance is important,
funding is important, and at the heart of both features of government
is the Treasury.
| 
