7 Use of DWP statistics
115. We have commented previously in this Parliament
on the negative way in which DWP benefit statistics are sometimes
covered in press stories, and on the role which DWP's processes
for releasing statistics might play in this.
116. We became concerned during spring 2013 about
the way in which a number of releases of DWP benefit statistics
had been reported in the media. The UK Statistics Authority investigated
two of these cases and highlighted changes it wished to see both
in DWP practice, and more widely across Government, in the way
benefit statistics are released to the media. We decided to take
oral evidence from DWP officials and Ministers to discuss our
concerns with them.[118]
Previous comment by the Committee
on DWP release of statistics
117. In our 2011 report on the migration of incapacity
benefits to ESA, we concluded that:
[...] more care is needed
in the way the Government engages with the media and in particular
the way in which it releases and provides its commentary on official
statistics [...] In the end, the media will choose its own angle,
but the Government should take great care with the language it
itself uses and take all possible steps to ensure that context
is provided when information [...] is released, so that unhelpful
and inaccurate stories can be shown to have no basis.[119]
In response, the Government emphasised that it "takes
great care" when publishing statistics to ensure that the
information is used in an appropriate manner. However, it also
stated that:
The Committee and Government
need to be mindful of the widespread public unease about the number
of people claiming incapacity benefits and it is therefore unsurprising
that this is reflected in the media. [...] However, it is important
to stress that it is not the Department's role to dictate what
can appear in stories in the media.[120]
118. In our 2012 report on reform of DLA, we referred
back to our 2011 comments on media coverage of benefit claimants
and the Government's response and said:
The Government's view seems
to be that the negative tone of press coverage of benefit claimants
is unsurprising since it merely reflects the public mood about
the integrity of the benefits system. However, the Government
should not ignore the fact that public opinion can also be positively
influenced by the media and we believe it should take the necessary
steps to ensure that its own contribution to media stories about
benefits is accurate and contextualised.
We also highlighted that "direct quotations
from Ministers can give undue credence to inaccurate or misleading
reports" and recommended that DWP "ensure that significant
statistical releases are accompanied by a press release setting
out the context and providing background explanatory notes".[121]
The Government's view was that it already
had a "robust process for releasing new statistics into the
public domain which conform with the Code of Practice for Official
Statistics". [122]
DWP processes for approving press
releases and public statements accompanying statistical releases
119. In advance of our oral evidence session in July
2013 with DWP officials, the Department provided us with more
details about the processes it has in place for releasing statistics.
Press releases are cleared by the relevant policy official before
release. Where they contain statistics or data, they are also
cleared by "the relevant analyst". Statistics are sometimes
released to back up information in press releases rather than
the other way round: "Whenever these statistics are not already
in the public domain, an ad hoc statistics release will be published
alongside any departmental use".
120. Press officers and other departmental officials
are given "pre-release access" to national and "high
profile" official statistics. This allows them to prepare
the Department's public response, which may include quotes from
Ministers or the Department, 24 hours before release. These responses
are also cleared by the relevant analyst and policy officials
before release.
121. DWP states that "press officers are aware
of their responsibility to abide by the Code of Practice for Official
Statistics". It highlights that the UK Statistics Authority
and DWP's Deputy Head of Profession for Statistics have met DWP
press officers "to educate them on the requirements of the
Code".[123]
UK Statistics Authority investigations
into DWP statistics during 2013
122. In May 2013 the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA)
reported on its investigations into two separate complaints about
benefit statistics.
INCAPACITY BENEFIT CLAIMANTS
123. Sheila Gilmore MP (a member of this Committee)
asked UKSA to investigate a Sunday Telegraph article in
March 2013 which stated that "900,000 choose to come off
sickness benefit ahead of tests".[124]
124. This related to DWP statistics on claims for
Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which has replaced Incapacity
Benefit (IB) as the income replacement benefit for people with
health conditions and disabilities which prevent them from working.
People claiming ESA are required to undergo the Work Capability
Assessment (WCA) to establish eligibility for the benefit. A process
started in 2011 to migrate existing IB claimants to ESA over the
period to 2014. The migration process involves a WCA.
125. Grant Shapps MP, the Conservative Party Chairman,
was quoted as saying "nearly a million people have come off
incapacity benefit [...] before going for the test." The
press article was drawn from a Conservative Party press release
which stated that "878,300 people claiming incapacity benefitmore
than a third of the totalhave chosen to drop their benefit
claim entirely rather than face a medical assessment, new figures
have revealed."
126. UKSA's investigation found that the 878,300
figure resulted from the conflation of official statistics relating
to new ESA claims with separate statistics on migration of Incapacity
Benefit claimants to ESA. The release also failed to make clear
that a number of claims were withdrawn because the person recovered
from their illness before the WCA took place. In his letter to
Sheila Gilmore setting out the findings, the UKSA Chair, Andrew
Dilnot, explained:
The statistical release does
not address the issue of why cases were closed in great
depth, but it does point to research undertaken by DWP which suggests
that "an important reason why ESA claims in this sample were
withdrawn or closed before they were fully assessed was because
the person recovered and either returned to work, or claimed a
benefit more appropriate to their situation.[125]
In oral evidence on 10 July, we asked the DWP Head
of Communications, John Shield, what role his staff had played
in the release of this information. He said:
This is really simple. I
knew you would ask, so I have checked with the press office. In
no way, shape or form was anyone involved in the production of
this. They were not, and I have been assured that this is purely
a piece of party output [...] no one in the press office or in
communications had any role in that; it is a party matter.[126]
127. When we questioned the Secretary of State about
this incident, he told us:
That was something that they
[Conservative Central Office] put together and released themselves.
In fact, I was not even aware that they were going out with the
comment at the time. [...] They had pulled two things together
and conflated them [...] but it is not us. I have had conversations
with him [the Conservative Party Chairman] and with others about
being careful to check with the Department: if they are going
to say something about the statistics that are out there, they
should check with us that those are the statistics that can be
correctly used. There has been an element of that since then,
so there has been less of that going on.[127]
IMPACT ON CLAIMANTS OF THE INTRODUCTION
OF THE BENEFIT CAP
128. The UK Statistics Authority undertook a second
investigation following a complaint from Nicola Smith, Head of
Economic and Social Affairs at the TUC, about the presentation
of statistics on the benefit cap.
129. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 provided for a cap
on total household benefits to be phased in from April 2013. The
cap limits the total benefit a household can receive to £500
per week for a family and £350 per week for a single person
with no children. The cap was initially piloted in four London
boroughs from April 2013; national implementation began in July
and was completed by September 2013 (except in Northern Ireland).[128]
(We have examined the impact of the benefit cap in detail in our
inquiry into support for housing costsbecause the cap is
in practice applied to the level of the housing costs element
of total benefits. Our report will be published shortly).
130. The Government's stated intentions for implementing
the cap are to improve working incentives for those on benefits,
to deliver fiscal savings, and to ensure workless households do
not receive more in benefits than the average working household.
[129]
131. When the benefit cap pilots began in April 2013,
DWP published two sets of related ad hoc statistics: one on Households
identified as potentially impacted by the benefit cap; and
a second set on Jobcentre Plus activity regarding claimants
who have been identified as potentially impacted by the benefit
cap.[130]
The TUC complaint was that DWP had misrepresented these statistical
analyses in a press statement it issued to the Press Association
on 12 April.
132. Press reports on the DWP statistics indicated
that the estimated number of households affected by the benefit
cap had fallen from 56,000 to 40,000. DWP was reported as saying
that "part of the reason for the drop is due to 8,000 unemployed
people finding work". The Secretary of State was quoted in
the Daily Mail on 12 April as saying that "Already we've
seen 8,000 people who would have been affected by the cap move
into jobs. This clearly demonstrates that the cap is having the
desired impact".[131]
A media debate followed on whether there was a causal link between
the introduction of the cap and people moving into employment.[132]
133. UKSA found that the Secretary of State's statement
was "unsupported by the official statistics published by
the Department".[133]
It highlighted that the Jobcentre Plus Activity Statistics from
which the 8,000 figure "appears to be drawn" explicitly
states that the figures "are not intended to show the additional
numbers entering work as a direct result of the contact [with
JCP]". The other set of statistics notes that the reduction
in the estimate of the number of households affected by the benefit
cap from 56,000 to 40,000 was "due to normal caseload churn,
reducing those potentially in scope for the cap" and that
both figures "assume no behavioural change".
134. In his letter to the Secretary of State, the
UKSA Chair said:
In the manner and form published,
the statistics do not comply fully with the principles of the
Code of Practice, particularly in respect of accessibility to
the sources of the data, information about the methodology and
quality of the statistics, and the suggestion that the statistics
were shared with the media in advance of their publication.
He pointed out that he had been given an assurance
by DWP in March 2013, following a similar incident, that senior
officials had reiterated to staff "the seriousness of their
obligations under the Code of Practice". His letter asked
for a further assurance "that the working arrangements within
the Department give sufficient weight to the professional role
and public responsibilities of statisticians".[134]
135. We questioned John Shield about the source of
the Secretary of State's press comments on the impact of the benefit
cap. He told us that it was:
[...] an opinion piece given
to the Daily Mail where the Secretary of State was stating
his opinion on the statistics, and not only basing it on that,
but basing it on what staff had been telling him about the impact
of the cap, the management information that he had been receiving
and what claimants had actually said to him. That was a judgment
formed by him and, as a politician, obviously he can make those
judgments around what he thinks the data are saying in the context
of everything else.[135]
136. John Shield made clear that this was "a
written article" by the Secretary of State; it was not based
on an interview. He also stated that "if a Minister is doing
an opinion piece that is about their reflections and views on
how policy is working and performing, sometimes they will be produced
without press office involvement." He said that such articles
were sometimes produced by Ministers themselves or by Special
Advisers. However, Mr Shield said that on this occasion, "it
did involve the press office".[136]
137. In an interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today
programme on 15 July, when the benefit cap began to be rolled
out nationally, the Secretary of State defended his use of the
8,000 figure in relation to people likely to be affected by the
cap who had sought work as a result. He said that he "believed"
that it was having this effect: people on benefits who had not
previously been seeking work now were, as a result of the cap.
He said it was not possible to "disprove" this claim
and he believed it to be right.[137]
In oral evidence to us in December, the Secretary of State made
a similar point:
[UKSA] said that whilst we
could not prove that they had gone in [to work] or could not prove
that they had not, but I should therefore not make the link other
than that I believe it to be the case that those people are going
back into work is hugely to do with the fact that we introduced
the cap. That is my belief, but they said that that should remain
as a flat statistic, which we have accepted.[138]
Recent UKSA comment on use of
DWP statistics
138. More recently, Sheila Gilmore MP raised with
UKSA the use made by a senior DWP official, during one of our
evidence sessions, of unpublished statistics on Work Programme
support.[139]
On 20 November 2013, Neil Couling, the DWP Director of Work Services,
gave evidence alongside the Minister for Employment in our inquiry
into Jobcentre Plus. During the session, he cited statistics on
the number of people who had found work after they had completed
two years on the Work Programme.[140]
In response to a subsequent parliamentary question, it became
clear that the statistics cited were based on unpublished Management
Information.[141]
(This information was subsequently published as part of the Work
Programme statistical summary on 19 December 2013.[142])
139. The Chair of UKSA highlighted in his response
that "the National Statistician has issued guidance on the
use of Management Information". This states that in "exceptional
circumstances", the departmental Head of Profession for Statistics
may agree to the use of information of this kind in public statements
if its use is "justified and clearly explained". DWP
had reported to UKSA that its "normal practice" was
for an analyst to "check and sign off the accuracy of the
statistical and internal management information to be used in
briefings for select committee hearings." However, no analyst
was involved in checking the information provided to the Committee
on 20 November. The UKSA Chair said that "it is a matter
of regret" that DWP's normal practice was not followed.[143]
Ensuring accurate presentation
of Government statistics
140. Our colleagues on the Public Administration
Select Committee (PASC) have undertaken a major review of Government
statistics. In a report published in May 2013, Communicating
statistics: not just true but also fair, the Committee concluded
that: "in some cases, the story behind the statistics is
reduced in its presentation to such an extent that the picture
is no longer true and fair".[144]
PASC emphasised that "to underpin good policy-making, statistics
must be presented in a fair, accurate way, 'unspun'" and
suggested that Government press releases "sometimes go too
far to create a newsworthy headline". The Chair of the Committee
(Bernard Jenkin MP) went on to say that:
Politicians tend to promote
the statistics which best present their case. Finding the whole
truth about government statistics is not always easy, and it should
be. The numbers may be perfectly true but the act of selecting
certain numbers distorts the true picture. This is important when
those numbers are being used to justify a particular policy, a
particular apportioning of resources. In some cases, spinning
reduces the story behind the statistics to such an extent that
the picture is no longer true.[145]
141. DWP releases
a great deal of statistical information about benefits. We have
commented before that it needs to exercise care in the language
used in accompanying press releases and ministerial comments in
the media. 2013 saw heightened and quite widespread concernincluding
from the UK Statistics Authority and organisations representing
disabled peopleabout the DWP commentary accompanying releases
of benefits statistics.
142. The Government is doing a great
deal to promote a positive image of disabled people, including
in the principles behind its Disability Strategy and the Disability
Confident campaign to help disabled people into employment. However,
this positive action risks being undermined if the language used
in DWP press releases and ministerial media comments accompanying
releases of benefit statistics adopts a tone which feeds into
negative preconceptions and prejudices about people on benefits,
including disabled people.
143. We agree
with our colleagues on the Public Administration Select Committee
(PASC) that Government statistics should be presented in a way
that is fair, accurate and "unspun" and that this is
especially the case when they are being used to justify a particular
policy or a particular allocation of resources. We reiterate our
view that DWP should avoid feeding into negative public views
about people who receive benefits, and that statistics should
be used objectively to shed light on policy implementation, not
to prop up established views and preconceptions. We recommend
that, in response to this Report, DWP sets out the specific steps
it has taken in response to the comments from PASC, the UK Statistics
Authority, and this Committee, to ensure that statistics are released
in a way which is accurate, and fair to benefit claimants.
118 Oral evidence taken on 10 July 2013 from DWP officials,
HC 570; and on 9 December 2013 from the Secretary of State, HC
867 Back
119
Sixth Report of Session 2010-2, The role of incapacity benefit reassessment in helping claimants into employment,
HC 1015-I, para 41 Back
120
Seventh Special Report of Session 2010-12, Government Response to the Committee's Sixth Report,
HC 1641, response to recommendations in paras 40-41 Back
121
Seventh Report of Session 2010-12, Government support towards the additional living costs of working-age disabled people,
HC 1493-I, paras 53-54 Back
122
First Special Report of Session 2012-13, Government Response to the Seventh Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 105, response to recommendations in paras 53-54, pp 4-5 Back
123
DWP written evidence published with oral evidence taken on 10 July 2013,
HC 570 Back
124
Sunday Telegraph, 30 March 2013 Back
125
Letter from Chair of UK Statistics Authority to Sheila Gilmore
MP, 29 May 2013, available on UK Statistics Authority website
at: http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence
(citing DWP, Unsuccessful ESA claims - qualitative research,
2011) Back
126
Oral evidence taken on 10 July 2013, HC 570, Q33 Back
127
Oral evidence taken on 9 December 2013, HC 867, Q6 Back
128
DWP, Impact Assessment- Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012: Impact assessment for the benefit cap,
July 2012 Back
129
DWP, Impact Assessment- Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012: Impact assessment for the benefit cap,
July 2012 Back
130
DWP, Ad hoc statistics on Households identified as potentially impacted by the benefit cap,
April 2013. The April 2013 document Jobcentre Plus activity
regarding claimants who have been identified as potentially impacted
by the benefit cap, no longer appears to be available on the
DWP website; it has been replaced by an updated version published
in December 2013. Back
131
Daily Mail, 12 April 2013 "One in four facing a cut in their benefits has found work" Back
132
See for example, The Guardian, 13 April 2013, "No evidence for Iain Duncan Smith benefit cap claim, says research chief" Back
133
Letter from Andrew Dilnot to Nicola Smith, 9 May 2013, available
on UK Statistics Authority website at: http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence
Back
134
Letter from Andrew Dilnot to the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions, 9 May 2013, available on UK Statistics Authority website
at: http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence Back
135
Oral evidence taken on 10 July 2013, HC 570, Q25 Back
136
Oral evidence taken on 10 July 2013, HC 570, Qq28 and 32 Back
137
BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 15 July 2013 Back
138
Oral evidence taken on 9 December 2013, HC 867, Q4 Back
139
Letter from Sheila Gilmore MP to the Chair of the UK Statistics
Authority, 21 January 2014, available on UK Statistics Authority
website at: http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence Back
140
Oral evidence taken in the inquiry into the role of Jobcentre
Plus in the reformed welfare system on 20 November 2013, Q559
Back
141
HC Deb, 9 December 2013, col 52w Back
142
DWP, Work Programme Statistical Summary, December 2013 Back
143
Letter from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority to Sheila
Gilmore MP, 21 February 2014, available on UK Statistics Authority
website at: http://statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence Back
144
First Report from the Public Administration Select Committee,
Session 2013-14, Communicating statistics: not just true but also fair,
HC 190, Summary Back
145
PASC press release, 29 May 2013, "PASC demands that Government stats are presented with "the whole truth" Back
|