Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
JOHN HEALEY
MP
14 JUNE 2006
Q280 John Thurso: In our first evidence
session all three witnesses—who I would broadly describe
as the user groups—raised the question of the fragmented
nature of UK statistics, particularly with regard to devolution.
One of them stated that the 2001 population census—the most
fundamental of statistics—was so fragmented that very few
outputs are available for the UK as a whole. When I pressed on
this, they said that it is not so much that devolution created
the problem but that it has brought it into a fairly sharp focus.
I want to make it clear that I am not in any of this challenging
the devolution settlement itself; but it does seem that there
is a real problem in producing joined-up UK statistics. Is this
a problem the Government is aware of, and do you have any remedies
that you might propose?
John Healey: We also have no intention
of reopening the devolution settlement.
Q281 John Thurso: No, we can leave
that aside.
John Healey: Let me be equally
clear and emphatic about that. You are right, Mr Thurso, it is
not a new problem. In Scotland, they have been producing certain
sets of statistics separately and independently for 100 years
or so. It is not a new issue, therefore, but perhaps it is being
emphasised by the statistics being part of the devolution settlement.
Yes, we are aware of it. We have sought to deal with some of the
statistical difficulties that that throws up in two ways. First
of all, the Framework for National Statistics, you may
remember, contains a chapter on each devolved administration and
their statistical approach. Also, we have settled as part of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the
devolved administrations in 2001 a concordat on statistics. Essentially,
this is a commitment by the administrations to work together to
produce agreed, coherent, reliable, and as comprehensive as possible
sets of statistics. However, there will inevitably be variations,
as there have been for some time. The Scottish law, health and
education systems are different. Some of their outputs are different.
Some of the information, monitoring and statistical requirements
will therefore be different, and that is a consequence of the
devolved function and the differential decisions that are made.
We have been discussing quite closely with the devolved administrations,
in particular the leading professional statisticians, how we ensure
that we can maintain, as far as we can, an ability to see compatible
datasets and comparability, where we can achieve that. To the
degree that the devolved administrations are willing to look at
renewing and perhaps reforming and strengthening the concordat,
we would be very keen to do that.
Q282 John Thurso: That was going
to be my next question, namely that all of the concordats were
written at a time when devolution was a new horizon and a new
adventure, and to ask you if the Government would be prepared
to look at rewriting the concordat, to make it more appropriate.
I think you have answered that. What responsibilities do you think
should be given to the National Statistician in overseeing the
coherence and consistency of the UK-wide statistics—if any?
John Healey: The majority of economic
statistics are produced centrally by the Office for National Statistics
at the moment. The National Statistician has oversight and will
continue, as Chief Statistician, to do so. Many of the stats of
the Office for National Statistics also have an underlying element
that the devolved administrations feed into. I would hope and
expect that that would continue. The ONS regularly receives around
250-300 datasets from the devolved administrations, which go into
the compilation of the statistics the ONS is responsible for.
There is also that area of statistics that, as the UK Government,
we are obliged by international obligations to supply. Once again,
the agreement we have in place with the devolved administrations
allows us to fulfil those international obligations. In all those
areas I would expect to see a continuing, important, professional
lead role for the Chief Statistician. The area where clearly there
are the differences and the difficulties are those devolved policy
areas where the activities may be different according to the devolved
administration and, therefore, the statistics and data available
or collected. Here, the role that the Chief Statistician for England
will have, dealing with her counterparts—as she does at
the ONS at the moment, to try to make sure that we secure as great
a degree of comparability, where that seems necessary—would
also continue.
Q283 John Thurso: At the moment,
the Statistics Commission have a UK-wide remit. Do you propose
that the new board would maintain that UK-wide remit, in terms
of a kind of overall quality audit?
John Healey: Nothing in the new
arrangements will interfere with the devolution settlement.
Fundamentally, therefore, devolved administrations —because
it is a devolved function—have the responsibility and the
scope to develop and run their statistical system as they choose.
Clearly there are the shared imperatives, which we have just touched
on, about comparability and consistency. When we introduced the
code of practice as part of the 2000 reforms, broadly the devolved
administrations accepted, signed up, and generally followed that.
I would hope that we could get to a similar situation, but ultimately
it will be for the devolved administrations to decide the degree
of buy-in and involvement they have in the new system that we
will legislate for.
Q284 John Thurso: It seems to me,
both through this dialogue and through previous evidence from
other witnesses, that a new concordat may well be highly desirable,
and that such a concordat will clearly be quite important. Would
it be possible for that to be consulted upon before it is finalised?
Is that a possibility in the system?
John Healey: I see no reason at
all why it should not be. I could see the significant advantages
if it was properly and publicly consulted upon. Certainly within
government we would need to consult very carefully across government.
Particularly as it would essentially be in the statistical area—it
would be a sort of formal agreement between the UK Government
and the devolved administrations—it would be difficult to
see that process completed without quite serious consultation.
Q285 Mr Todd: One of the sensitive
areas which we have frequently had touched on is the access of
ministers to statistics before they are released. The Statistics
Commission favoured moving to a position in which there is no
pre-release disclosure to ministers, and indeed that equivalent
access is given, if there is any pre-release, to Opposition spokespeople.
What is your response to that?
John Healey: I probably have three
responses to that. First of all, you will have seen in the consultation
document, Mr Todd, that we have included the question of pre-release
to see what views we might get as part of the consultation and
we will look at those carefully.
Q286 Mr Todd: We have not heard anyone
say, "We're happy as it is", but you may within your
consultation. I do not know.
John Healey: We may. We may get
people saying, "This is a good system. It should be left
untouched". We may get some people saying that, on principle,
this is a system which is not acceptable and—
Q287 Mr Todd: We have chosen our
witnesses poorly if there are people in that first group!
John Healey: . . . or we might
get people saying, "There is a sensible case for pre-release,
but it could be reformed in a way that would make it tighter and
perhaps inspire more confidence". If there are suggestions
about reforming the pre-release system, therefore, we will clearly
look at those. There are two further things that I would want
to make clear. First of all, I would certainly accept that the
pre-release arrangements contribute to the perception of interference
in statistics. In fact, the cases of abuse of the system and actual
interference in the production, and indeed even in the release
of statistics, are very few and far between. Nevertheless, there
is a perception there. Part of the drive to legislate now to entrench
the independence is to try to deal with some of the problems that
are still there in perception. Finally there is the question—and
this is a question that people must make their own judgments about—of
is there or is there not a case for any form of pre-release arrangements?
In my view, the principle of pre-release is justified largely
because—particularly in today's world, with the sorts of
imperatives and pressures—ministers are required, expected,
as part of our duty to be accountable for the decisions and what
is going on in government, to understand and respond immediately
to challenges that might come from the production of statistics.
In those circumstances, I think it is right and sensible that
there is some degree of pre-release. Second, I think that the
principle of pre-release is quite widely accepted internationally.
The details may be different but the principle of pre-release
is accepted. It is accepted in Australia, New Zealand, the USA,
Ireland and France. So I think that the principle of pre-release
is sensible and defensible. The practice of it is important; the
details of it we will be prepared to look at; and we are looking
forward to the views we get through the consultation on that.
Q288 Mr Todd: There is a little bit
more than a perception of abuse, because when we questioned the
Statistics Commission on their investigations into claimed abuse
they made a rather ambiguous remark, in which the word "ambiguous"
appears quite a number of times. "We have found at times
. . . some difficulty in getting the responses from departments,
and I think if you do not get the information you require then
it is somewhat difficult to be certain, especially in this highly
ambiguous situation of whether something is a breach of an ambiguous
code . . . 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 . . .
." That was a remark made to us, which did not give that
ring of confidence which you have expressed, which is that there
may be a perception but perhaps not a problem. They feel that
the regulatory process they carry out is incomplete and perhaps
rather hobbled by the code that they are using.
John Healey: The Statistics Commission
will have to explain the evidence they give before the Committee.
If I heard you right, Mr Todd, they said that there was often
a problem. Actually, the number of breaches which the Statistics
Commission is responsible for investigating is small in number.
I gave an indication of the 2004-05 figures, and it looks as if
the 2005-06 figures are fewer than that. If the Statistics Commission
are not getting the information from departments that they require,
I would expect that to be the sort of thing that they would draw
attention to and report as part of their general duty, as they
are currently constituted to draw to ministers' and others' attention
where they see problems with the operation and integrity of the
system at present.
Q289 Mr Todd: You feel that they
have not done that? Obviously they have made a remark which is
scarcely a ringing endorsement of their own function in this role.
John Healey: My point is more
that the number and the nature of breaches of the code on pre-release
are rather few and far between. Of the six they investigated in
2004-05 they found three were accidental. Three were breaches,
but they were content, as I understand it, about the action that
was taken to deal with them.
Q290 Mr Todd: Can I turn to a different
topic? We have asked questions of a number of witnesses on the
access to data which is the basis on which assembly of statistics
is achieved. We have had comments about the difficulties, sometimes
varying difficulties, of obtaining core data from departments
for independent statisticians and third-party business users then
to develop their own series of information sources for their own
purposes. Would not this legislation be a good opportunity to
set that straight and make much clearer how core data can be obtained
for use by third parties?
John Healey: The legislation evidently
is an opportunity to deal with some of the questions that are
around data access, in particular access to administrative data.
The issues around access to administrative data are quite complex.
However, we have clearly signalled our interest in hearing views
during the consultation process of the extent to which the current
arrangements—which will obviously need as a minimum to be
entrenched in legislation—could be developed further. Also,
how at the same time some of the appropriate safeguards on confidentiality,
particularly of micro data that can identify individuals, can
be safeguarded—because that is obviously the flip side to
that.
Q291 Mr Todd: So there is an open
mind on this topic. Because the way in which this debate has been
conducted in large part has been almost "Westminster village"
stuff: of how to stop politicians being horrible with statistics,
when there is a broader community who rely on access to data and
use it for their own purposes, who would love to be included in
the broader remit of this bill.
John Healey: There is a broader
community with interest in access to administrative data. There
is also an interest within the statistical professionals, particularly
in the ONS, in access to some data that other government departments
have at the moment that they do not. There are potentially benefits.
There are potentially benefits on the business side for reduction
in some of the survey requirements and the burdens of responding
there. There are also benefits in terms potentially of statistical
quality, which would allow the ONS and others to develop much
more finely grained data and analysis, which would contribute
in many way. However, there are these knotty and residual or core
questions, which revolve around how you make sure your safeguards
are properly in place to ensure that. We have said that we will
consider, and we will, the views that come back to us through
the consultation process.
Q292 Mr Todd: Finally, stuck within
this process is the Register Office function, which the Government
is suggesting transferring to no particular destination, but away
from where it resides now. Do you have a feeling of where it might
be relocated? We have had a signal from statisticians that their
only discomfort in this is in ensuring that the core data which
the Register Office function does collect remains easily accessible
to those who need to use it. I do not think that we have had anyone
saying, "No, no, we wish to keep the function of the registration
of marriages and deaths as an important activity of the statistical
function of government".
John Healey: No, we do not have
a fixed view on this at the moment. It seems to us—and we
have indicated this in the consultation document—that where
formally there are statistical responsibilities currently identified
as the responsibility of the Registrar General—who happens
to be one and the same with the National Statistician—it
is sensible for those such as the Census to be properly with the
Office for National Statistics in the future. However, because
there are functions of the Registrar General overseas areas that
are not necessarily statistical, which require the involvement
of ministers, then it seems sensible to us to be expecting to
separate that function out and locate it elsewhere than within
the current ONS. There are certain policy functions, particularly
around the registration roles of the GRO, which necessarily involve
ministers. There are also legislative functions around that which
directly involve ministers which in our view do not make it appropriate,
in the new statistical world, for it to sit with an independent
statistical office.
Q293 Ms Keeble: I want to ask a bit
more about the development of new statistics, in particular to
help to support evidence-based policymaking. So, if you like,
the small-scale statistics—and you have mentioned the need
for more fine-grained statistics—on which the neighbourhood
renewal programme depends, or research for some stats to measure
productivity in the public sector. How would you see those being
developed under the new system that is being proposed? Would you
see ministers commissioning them and, if so, would it then be
from the independent office or would it be from their own departments?
John Healey: In general terms,
if there was a strong policy or government need for statistics,
then clearly government and the lead department in all likelihood
would want to commission those. The judgment would probably have
to be in two stages. First of all, are they best commissioned
from the Office for National Statistics, as the central statistical
service, for instance in the way that the development of the neighbourhood
statistics and the Neighbourhood Statistics' website have been
done? Or are they best commissioned and developed within the department
itself, given that our Government Statistical Service does have
a presence, professional expertise, and heads of profession in
each department? The second issue facing ministers in circumstances
like that, it seems to me, would be, "Are these important
enough—these statistics that we want to develop—for
them to be classified and given the seal of approval as national
statistics?", in which case there would be a question of
proposing those to the board; probably having them provisionally
designated as national statistics, but assessed and approved by
the board as national statistics because they meet the code that
the board has drawn up.
Q294 Ms Keeble: I think that this
issue about independence, integrity, credibility and so on, is
a really difficult one. Does that not mean that you will have
two tiers of statistics? One which is produced by the ONS and
which is seen to have integrity, independence, and this, that
and the other; and the other, which might be greatly used for
functional purposes but would be seen to be dodgy or tainted or
something, because they do not quite make the grade. Will it not
mean that there will always be a dispute about political statistics
and non-political statistics—which is actually what this
whole debate is about, is it not? People dispute the statistics
that deal with the politically most contentious issues.
John Healey: First of all, I accept
that we have a situation at the moment where, if you look at the
omnibus survey commissioned by the ONS and the Statistics Commission,
62% of the public think that ONS statistics are more trustworthy
than those produced within government departments. That is precisely
the reason why we are looking to bring in a new system for national
statistics, in which they are not just declared to follow a code
of practice but are independently assessed as such, and independently
adjudged and approved as such. A system which will reach into
the departments where the majority of the key statistics—in
other words, the national statistics, as I have explained to the
Committee—will still be produced. What I hope, therefore—and
this is the intention of the new system—is that independent
assessment and health check, if one likes, is equally applicable
to what the ONS produces as it is to the national statistics that
are produced within the departments. The only way of approaching
that differently would be to say, "All National Statistics
have to be produced by the Office for National Statistics".
You would have to take out the production of a large range of
statistics from government departments, if you pursued the concern
that you have to a logical conclusion.
Q295 Ms Keeble: Can I come back on
this point once more, because it is a really key one. Supposing
you have an issue about measuring poverty, for example. This is
a really key issue because, on this, all our rates, council tax
subsidies and suchlike are calculated, are they not? Large amounts
of government money go on that. If there is a really big dispute
about what constitutes poverty—for example, how you factor
in ethnicity or measure sparsity, what happens to rural poverty
or, for instance, having been a councillor in Peckham, there might
be an acute concentration of poverty which, in terms of London-wide
statistics, completely disappears, with the Office for National
Statistics saying, "That's not poverty" or "We
wouldn't accept that that's a way to measure poverty", and
a great body of opinion, which would probably be politicians,
saying, "Oh, yes, it is"—how would you deal with
that?
John Healey: But is not that precisely
what this system—and perhaps I have not made myself clear—will
actually deal with? What matters is not who is producing the statistics;
what matters is precisely how they are produced. In other words,
is the information, the data, gathered, collated and produced
in a way that meets the professional standards, which would be
set independently in this code of practice and assessed and adjudged
independently of government? That is the quality check, the confidence
check, that this new system promises. It is there, available to
what ONS produces, as indeed to datasets and stats that come out
of departments.
Q296 Ms Keeble: All the procedures
in the world cannot take away the fact that at some point people
have to make decisions and assessments. To take a really practical
example, when Ofsted was set up it did league tables which measured
school performance; it took kids' assessments. Your party did
it. When we were not MPs and running these councils, the schools
all cried foul and said, "Those aren't valid, because they
don't take value added into account". Some years down the
line, you then get value added included. It is disputes like that,
which are about ways of measuring things. However much you try
to sanitise it, there are political judgments in there. Would
you accept that, however hard you try, independence will not be
able to resolve some of those really difficult political issues?
John Healey: I think that it will
help considerably. I said a while back that if I am the minister
responsible for a policy area and I am looking for data to be
generated in that area that tells me how it is going and which
I can use to tell Parliament and others how we are doing, clearly
I have the option of doing that within the department. If there
is a dispute or a challenge to the way that that data is produced,
how much confidence people can have in it, whether it is professionally
robust and reliable, I am in a relatively weak position if my
argument is essentially one of contesting a judgment made by a
professional statistical service like this. From my point of view
as a minister, there is quite an incentive for me to say, "This
is important. It will help me and it will help confidence in what
we are doing if it is brought into the national statistical framework
and assessed as that".
Q297 Chairman: I am still not quite
clear, Minister, if your real answer is that all these statistics
will hopefully now be produced to the same high standard through
the code of practice, as to why you will still end up with two
classes of statistics. If you rightly are enhancing the perception
of national statistics, is not the danger that you will still
have this kind of category II of government statistics? Lord Moser—and
it is unfair to refer his evidence to you because you were not
here—simply did not understand why there could not be a
single definition of statistics.
John Healey: I did try to explain
before that the nature and range of statistics produced by government
that are official statistics are virtually unbounded. The question
is can you devise a system, and would you want to devise a system,
that somehow gave a quality assurance check on all those? Our
judgment is no. Then the question comes: what are the statistics
that you give priority to? It seems a sensible starting point,
particularly compared to other countries—although they calculate
them differently and we have significantly more national statistics
that would fall within this framework than perhaps others—to
say, "This data is important and it is particularly important
for holding the Government to account, or because it tells us
the most important things that we need to know about, where the
economy and society are changing".
Q298 Chairman: I understand that
but, in creating these A-list statistics—the alpha statistics—and
enhancing the way they are branded, you are almost admitting that
there is a whole chunk of official statistics that cannot be quality-assured
to the same standard. It seems to me that you are actually weakening
the perception of those statistics that will not be National Statistics.
John Healey: They could be quality
assured if there was a decision that they should be brought into
that system. What I am arguing, however, is that there is a huge
range of data that is produced—in some part as one-offs,
sometimes in the natural course of just running departments—that
probably does not warrant that sort of status and scrutiny.
Q299 Peter Viggers: You mentioned
that 62% of the population had more confidence in national statistics.
John Healey: The ONS-produced
statistics.
|
