Statistics show this watchdog is prepared to bare its teeth

Thursday, March 05, 2009

When Sir Michael Scholar was given the job of improving public trust in national statistics there were those who claimed he was too much of a Whitehall man to be effective. But in less than a year he has managed to make some pretty big waves and he tells Alison Thomas how he has gone about it

Be careful what you wish for – it might just come true. Concern about declining public trust in government in general – and official statistics in particular – led ministers, with all- party support, to set up an independent watchdog in the UK Statistics Authority, with a tough new code of practice for all public bodies producing any kind of official figures.

But nearly a year on ministers could well be feeling somewhat sore. The watchdog they created has turned round and bitten them – hard – for mangling statistics in high-profile press releases. And the greater degree of independence given to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is also making waves, with a row currently raging over its decision to release an analysis of figures on foreign- born workers in the UK alongside other labour market statistics.

Meanwhile UK Statistics Authority chairman Sir Michael Scholar could be forgiven if he were to say "told you so" to the MPs who queried his appointment and suggested that as a former permanent secretary he was too much of a Whitehall insider to be an effective watchdog.

"I said from the start that I would be independent," Sir Michael says. "It was suggested I was an ex-mandarin, a member of the club and all that stuff, and I said: 'Well, you watch what I do'. I think there will be fewer people thinking I am not independent now. One of the reasons I took this job is that having good statistics is like having clean water and clean air. It's the fundamental material that we depend on for an honest political debate – and we are so nearly there. So many of our statistics are perfectly good and fair; they have a good international reputation. If we could only get the handling of them improved we would score lots of points in raising the level of public trust."

One reason for the furore over national statistician Karen Dunnell's decision to release the labour force figures was, he believes, a failure to appreciate the implications of the new regime brought in by the Statistics and Registration Service Act of 2007. "People take a long time to understand that things have changed, and that the ONS is under the direction of the independent board that I head and we report directly to parliament, not to ministers. So the allegation that the national statistician was politically motivated or that there was politics in it, has no basis to it at all. She has for many years had an independence as national statistician but that is now copper-bottomed by the Act."

The authority is being "even-handed" in standing up for ONS independence and at the same time investigating the statistical report itself to answer complaints that it was deficient or liable to misinterpretation.

Sir Michael says Dunnell's motivation was to make statistics more intelligible. "There we were producing an absolute mass of figures that came out of the labour force survey and she knew very well that one of the areas in which there was great public interest and concern was the numbers about people in work who were born overseas. Those statistics in the past have been tremendously misunderstood and manipulated by commentators, so she took the decision to bring forward an impartial and objective analysis, which would have been produced anyway two weeks later. She took the decision to bring it forward to bring some light into the debate."

Promoting better understanding of statistics is an important part of the authority's work, he adds.

"Our objective is to make official statistics more intelligible, more accessible – even more attractive – so people can get the information they need."

One innovation is a national statistics publication hub website, on which all the new statistical releases are posted every day. "For the first time it completely separates the statistics from comment on them. I regard that as a really important move."

Government departments – notably the Home Office – are having to learn some painful lessons on the use and misuse of statistics. The Home Office has found itself in hot water a couple of times – for its fact sheet on knife crime statistics in December, and for tacking a press release on "tough border controls" onto ONS data on population figures last August.

So is it fair to call the Home Office a serial offender? "They have taken up quite a bit of our time and attention in recent months," Sir Michael replies. "In relation to the knife crime episode, of course, the Home Secretary apologised on the floor of the House of Commons and in my book that's pretty good going."

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell has also taken the criticism seriously and has set out three "very important" lessons for government to learn, Sir Michael says.

These are that the code for official statistics applies to everyone – special advisers, ministers and policy civil servants, as well as statisticians; that any figures being used by a minister or department to support a policy statement or important announcement should be subject to the same rigour as other statistics; and that statisticians should be involved from an early stage in any policy announcement or document.

"If departments follow those three lessons scrupulously, we will see really big improvements in the way the government handles statistics," Sir Michael says.

The new rule that data cannot be released to the media or ministers more than 24 hours before publication is also having an effect.

This year, for example, the Department for Children, Schools and Families issued information on schools' exam performance to all media and ministers 24 hours ahead of publication – instead of handing it to a select few media outlets a whole week in advance as had happened previously.

"I regard that as a cleaning up of the arrangements, really, and I think we are going to see that kind of thing happening all over the place. And some of it will be quite uncomfortable because people get used to cosy arrangements and when they are withdrawn for a more defensible arrangement they complain. But then they get used to it, and we have a better system."

Does what is perceived as the selective release of the most favourable figures into friendly ears contribute to public distrust?

"I think it does," Sir Michael replies. "I personally think it's a form of corruption."

And the authority would prefer an even tougher regime. "We would like to follow best international practice and have zero pre-release so that the statisticians produce the numbers and they go simultaneously to the whole of the political community. They go to parliament, and the opposition and the backbenchers and the ministers get them all at the same time and that's when the fun begins. But the fun shouldn't begin before that for selected people.

"I agree with what your question was suggesting, that if they do go to selected people there is a question in people's minds about what is going on – is there some kind of manipulation going on?"

And if the statistics are unfavourable it also gives 24 hours for ministers to get their alibis in place?

"Well, in some cases we have seen it gives either ministers or political advisers time to leak. It's well known that there are leaks of statistics sometimes and if you have a tough pre-release regime the opportunity for leaking is much reduced."

Politicians of any party will always seek to use statistics to their best advantage, and abolishing spin "is not a sensible ambition", Sir Michael says. "But what should happen is that political debate takes place on the basis of a clean set of statistics, produced without political interference by professionals who have a clear set of values as regards the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of what they are doing.

"Then I think the public can work out for itself when the statistics are being spun by somebody, whether it's the opposition or the government or the media that is spinning them. There are plenty of people around to point out if there's a bit of spin going on, and I'm in favour of that – it's what's known as democracy."