Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR MICHAEL
FALLON MP, MR
SIMON BRISCOE
AND MS
JILL LEYLAND
10 JULY 2008
Q1 Chairman: Let me call the Committee
to order and welcome our witnesses this morning. We are delighted
to see you. The context for the meeting, as you will know, is
that, with the setting up of the UK Statistics Authority as a
Cabinet Office body, responsibility for overview of that area
has passed from the Treasury Sub-Committee to ourselves and we
are trying to take stock of the area to see what we have let ourselves
in for really. That is why we have asked you to come and help
us. Thank you very much for the memoranda that you have given
us. I wonder if any of you would like to say something just by
way of introduction or would you like to go to questions?
Ms Leyland: I think
probably what we wanted to say is set out in the two memoranda.
As you know, I am trying to represent both the Royal Statistical
Society and the Statistics User Forum. I think the key points
are in there.
Mr Fallon: Very briefly, Chairman,
I would say that I see this as not simply an administrative rearrangement.
This is something that Parliament wanted and indeed Parliament
fought for. My Committee recommended this change, that the Statistics
Authority should be placed at arm's length, that it should come
out of the dark shadow of the Treasury and should be supported
by a Committee like yours, with a wider reach right across Whitehall.
This is something Parliament recommended and fought for during
the passage of the legislation, so I hope your Committee will
see it as something that you welcome and something you are prepared
to defend and to work with, rather than simply another chore that
has been landed on you.
Q2 Chairman: I am sorry if it sounded
like that. It should not have sounded like that. It should have
sounded a moment of new endeavour, which it will be. I will tell
you what I would like to start with really, picking up Michael
Fallon's point, which is the purpose of this whole enterprise.
Much of the discussion about it has been to do with ensuring the
integrity and independence of the statistics system and the benefits
that that will bring to public trust and public perception but,
reading around all this, we have a conundrum, do we not, which
is that everybody seems to think—Jill, your memorandum says
it—that our statistics system works well, that on the whole
it stands up well internationally, yet when these surveys are
done—I am not going to give the figures—they show
generally that people do not trust them and in fact we come out
worst when the pan-European surveys are done. So we have a paradox
that, on the whole, we have a rather good and robust system, yet
we are miserable in terms of people's trust in it. If the purpose
of this whole reorganisation is to do something about that, what
chance do we have, do you think?
Ms Leyland: I think we have a
good system in that the quality of the statistics that are produced
and the professionalism of the statisticians who produce them
is very good. Where I think the system has failed in the past
is in two main areas: first of all, in the planning and the organisation.
For example, the UK statistics system was very slow in the 1980s
to follow the fact that the economy had shifted away from manufacturing
towards services. Even today you would probably find that service
statistics are not as good as they should be compared to manufacturing.
More recently, of course, you had all the issues with the population
and migration statistics. I think we have always been quite weak
in that area. The other area we have been weak in is outreach.
There have been huge complaints, just to take one thing, about
the Office for National Statistics website. I know there are measures
now afoot and progress is being made, although I think we would
probably all like to see faster progress, but also in outreach
generally, not just to professional users of statisticians but,
as far as it can be, to the wider public, and that includes also
of course the media, business and so forth. I think there the
system has failed. I would like just to say one other word on
the confidence issue. We probably should not take the European
figures quite at face value. Certainly we are by no means the
worst. I can say that with some confidence, having worked on statistics
for a number of other countries. One thing that came out of that
survey was that larger countries in general had less trust than
smaller countries. I think we are cynical in this country; we
tend not to trust officialdom and government. There is a cynicism
in this country which there is not always in other countries.
There is obviously less respect for authority perhaps than there
used to be. I think in some ways the figures probably gave a worse
impression than is the case but, nevertheless, there is a problem
with confidence and I think it is quite a serious one.
Q3 Chairman: Thank you for that.
Simon Briscoe, reading your articles, you say, interestingly,
about this that trust in statistics tends to correlate closely
with trust in government. Then you say a little later on, "The
relationship makes it difficult for trust in data are to be improved
if faith in government remains low, a particular challenge in
the UK." That is really behind my question. We can do all
this to improve the independence and integrity of the statistics
system but if it is still being brought down by this general problem
of trust, in a sense, we shall not solve the problem, shall we?
Mr Briscoe: I think that might
provide a ceiling as to how high confidence in statistics might
rise if there is still low confidence in government generally.
But I think, in a spirit of optimism about this new arrangement,
we should also accept that if statistics were produced in a more
transparent, open, and honest way, and if they were used more
honestly by those who do use them, that could also provide a virtuous
circle to get the trust rising. I do not think it is all necessarily
lost. Coming back to your original point, there is nothing entirely
inconsistent with British statistics generally being better than
others and our level of trust being low if statistics in other
countries are very poor. It might be that we are scoring better
than other countries but still quite low. That is important to
bear in mind. It is also important to bear in mind that in Britain
we have a particularly questioning parliamentary system and research
community of charities and think-tanks, and we have a more demanding
press than in most other countries so, if you like, the bar is
set that much higher here.
Chairman: What we would like to do today,
insofar as we have the time to do it, is for you to identify with
us those areas of interest and concern that you think we, as a
Parliamentary Committee that will have a relationship with the
UK Statistics Authority, should be aware of and will want to keep
its eye on. That is the point of this morning. I am going to ask
colleagues to come in and explore some of these particular issues
with you.
Q4 Paul Flynn: Mr Briscoe, under
the previous Government I can remember the Department of Employment
being described as the most disreputable massage parlour in London
in their treatment of employment statistics. Under this Government,
this year we have had the Home Office's account of what has happened
with their drugs targets from 1998-2008, which is a statistical
atrocity by any standards, where every way of lying with statistics
was in that presentation. They changed the base year here and
there, they ignored the targets that were there. That has been
destroyed as a piece of work. Both governments have used spin
and presentation to distort the truth and produce statistics that
were not reputable. Is there really any way of getting out of
this? If we take, say, the Home Office and take those figures,
do you think that the Statistics Authority can exercise its role
to make sure that Departments who are politically on the make
or presentationally on the make are going to produce statistics
that are worth treating seriously?
Mr Briscoe: I think there is something
inherently awkward about the structure that we have. It has been
described as unique, in that ...
Q5 Paul Flynn: Would you like to
describe it—the good statistics with the questionionable
statistics we have now.
Mr Briscoe: Yes. The problem we
have at the moment with the new structure is that on the one hand,
the Statistics Authority is a producer of statistics through the
Office for National Statistics, the ultimate controller of that.
And yet, its control over the other government departments, the
point you are making, is less strong; it is more indirect. One
of the big challenges for the Authority, and for you as a Committee,
is to ensure that the Authority is able to get actively involved
in the presentation and creation of statistics in other government
departments. I do not think there is an easy solution. I do hope
that by spotting the problems that have happened, by reporting
them to the Statistics Authority, they will then be able to pursue
them and ensure that government departments do not do it in the
future. With public support, with cross-party support, and with
support from both Houses, I think they will be able to make progress
but it is not going to be a quick fix.
Q6 Paul Flynn: I think we would all
agree that it is a great credit to the Government for introducing
this Bill, which does diminish their power in many ways but throughout
the process of the Bill through Parliament one of the key issues
was the pre-release time. Is it indicative of the fact that there
is still a reluctance to give complete freedom on this that the
Government are insisting on having a pre-release time in order
to possibly prepare the ground to manipulate the figures in certain
ways?
Mr Briscoe: I think it is something
of a miracle that we have got to where we are today. The Government
did back in 1997-98 introduce a new framework that was launched
in 2000. It was widely accepted, despite all the trumpeting of
that, that it did not really make much difference to how things
operated. The initial Bill for this legislation was very sad and
had many weaknesses, and it was really only through, to be honest,
a quite remarkable gathering of disparate forces that got through
a number of changes that mean we now have legislation that I think
is worth running with. So although it is good that we are where
we are, I do feel there is a sense that Ministers and Government
have been rather dragged to this point and they are rather unwilling
to give up the influence on statistics. Pre-release is a perfect
example. There are not many occasions where pre-release access
is abused but there are occasions, and they can be detailed for
you if you do not have the list. I just do not really see the
point in Ministers still wanting to access this.
Q7 Paul Flynn: We had the example
of release of figures showing there had been increase in experiments
on animals in laboratories, and in order to prepare the ground
the Government released some report on the favourable results
of animal experiments that was done 24 hours before the figures
were released. That was seen to be a way of manipulating the presentation
of the figures. Do you think that is disreputable and should not
be allowed?
Mr Briscoe: Absolutely. The only
way that the Minister of that Department, or his advisers or officials
could ring up the Today programme the day before and give
them a nudge and a wink was because they knew what the figures
were showing, and if they did not have the figures, they would
not be able to do that. Somehow Ministers pretend that when the
data is released at 9.30, they will be approached by a posse of
journalists at 9.31 and they will be embarrassed because they
cannot give a full description of the data. The world just does
not work like that. Ministers are not in that position and it
does not take a Minister's Department and its advisers very long
to look at a release and come up with a basic line to take on
it any more than it takes a journalist from a wire service more
than a couple of minutes to get his first take on a newswire.
Q8 Paul Flynn: Statistics have for
you been a lifelong fascination. Can you explain to us the statistical
significance of your decision to use a motorbike as the most dangerous
form of transport? What point was being made there, as reported
by Matthew Parris very entertainingly?
Mr Briscoe: Gosh! Do I want to
go too much into this?
Chairman: "No" is the answer!
I think we will just let it sit on the record, if that is all
right.
Q9 Paul Flynn: It does establish
Mr Briscoe's distinguished and long devotion to the importance
of statistics. Can I come back to you? You have written very entertainingly
about the way that statistics are presented by the media and so
on. Is this an area in which there is no hope of getting a rational,
objective presentation in the popular press of statistics, however
pristine they appear and however objective they appear when they
are presented by the Statistics Authority?
Mr Briscoe: There will always
be difficulties but let us deal with one thing at a time. Statistics
should be a bit like—what is a suitable analogy?—something
like food labelling. We put instructions on packets of food about
how to cook it and when you should eat it by. There are suitable
health warnings, presented sensibly and fairly. We just need to
think the same way about statistics. You cannot then be confident
that everyone will use the food in that way, and some people will
abuse statistics.
Chairman: Can I ask Michael or Jill if
they want to also come in on any of the points?
Q10 Paul Flynn: You said in your
first remarks that the Government or Parliament was removing the
collection of statistics out of the dark shadow of the Treasury.
Could you remind us who put statistics into the dark shadow of
the Treasury?
Mr Fallon: I am sure it was a
previous government.
Q11 Paul Flynn: Yes, it was. At the
time statisticians came to us, came to me as their constituency
MP, and said, "We are being put into the Department that
has the greatest interest in manipulating the figures," and
they were very worried that they would produce their work and
it would then be distorted by politicians. I had a letter from
Mrs Thatcher telling me this was a most unworthy suggestion. You
would take that as being something that was dangerous now, would
you? I think you were in Parliament at the time. I think it was
1988 or 1989.
Mr Fallon: I think you are right
about the date. Yes, it was almost certainly a mistake to have
statistics too close to the Treasury. We all argued against that
when the legislation was produced, and what was interesting was,
I think on the Treasury Committee six of the 11 members then were
former Ministers, and all of them from all parties argued that
that change should be made. May I come back to the original question?
I think the example you gave is a very good one about animal testing.
That, as I understand it, would be a breach of the draft code
of practice published earlier this week about policy statements
made accompanying the release of statistics. Here I think there
is a huge role for your Committee in supporting the Statistics
Authority. I would hope you would get to the point where a Permanent
Secretary would advise his Ministers against making any kind of
statement like that when the statistics were about to be released
in the knowledge that he, the Permanent Secretary, might be called
in front of this Committee to answer the suggestion that it was
a breach, and that he would have to account for the way he had
dealt with the handling of this particular statistical release,
just as the Permanent Secretary has to account for a particular
item of public expenditure before the Public Accounts Committee.
I think in that way you can strengthen the role of the Statistics
Authority by ensuring that Permanent Secretaries right across
Whitehall know they could be called to account.
Q12 Chairman: Just on that, is there
an issue too about who provides the commentary?
Mr Fallon: Absolutely.
Q13 Chairman: What is the issue there?
Mr Fallon: That is in the code
of practice.
Ms Leyland: Yes. This would state
that the commentary to statistics should be written by the statisticians
and, if there is any policy commentary, it should be separate.
That would be the ideal solution. Obviously, Ministers are free
to comment but that should be clearly separated.
Q14 Chairman: This does not happen
at the moment?
Mr Briscoe: There are some awful
examples at the moment. Thinking about the Home Office when they
released the crime figures, very typically they put out the press
release, which is a departmental ministerial press release, at
9.30. If you then want the detailed data on an Excel spreadsheet
so you can see the trends other than the ones that the press release
chooses to pick out, you have to wait till later in the day. I
have seen times where it has been four or five o'clock, in other
words, far too late even to affect the reporting in the newspaper.
At the very, very least we should have a political commentary
and the data released separately at 9.30.
Q15 Paul Flynn: On the question of
the relocation of the jobs to Newport, what is your current view
on the wisdom of the relocation to Newport from Titchfield and
Pimlico?
Ms Leyland: Relocation decisions
are always difficult. The decision has been made. There are obviously
large cost savings. There are obviously a lot of advantages. I
know, for example, that there is far less turnover of staff in
Newport. I have two concerns, one short-term and one long-term.
The short-term one is the loss of expertise because we have a
situation where something like 10-15% of staff only moved with
their posts to Newport, so clearly there is a potential large
loss of expertise. We have been told of examples where people
have relocated and this has happened.
Q16 Paul Flynn: Did you make a submission
on these lines at the time?
Ms Leyland: The Statistics User
Forum has certainly raised this in the past with the Treasury
Select Committee.
Q17 Paul Flynn: Michael is on the
Treasury Select Committee. Can I ask you, Michael, what your views
are?
Mr Fallon: We were obviously concerned
about recruitment and there were concerns elsewhere. If you recall,
there were concerns in the Bank of England that some of the expertise
in the pricing division might be lost; we were concerned as to
whether these people would be properly replaced. But it has happened
now and what they have to do is make sure it works.
Q18 Paul Flynn: When you made your
decision, I am sure you would not be influenced in any way by
considerations that Titchfield is in your constituency and Newport
is in my constituency. On your Committee's decision, did you look
at previous relocations of the Patent Office and so on, as the
Lyons Report put out, the wisdom and success of previous relocations?
Mr Fallon: I am not sure whose
constituency Titchfield is in. It is not in mine. It is in Hampshire.
Q19 Chairman: One sure thing is that
Newport is in his!
Mr Briscoe: My understanding is
the Patent Office is not a terribly good example. I do not have
in my mind the exact figures but I think there were only 20 or
25 professional staff involved in that move, whereas the ONS is
probably relocating, I would hazard a guess, 500 professional
staff. As an order of magnitude, that I think does not make that
a particularly fair comparison.
| 
