 |
 |
> What about an independent statistical service? > > Alison A good question! The RSS meeting on Wednesday really exposed the weaknesses of the response to the idea of an independent service. There was nothing new on the idea of National Statistics except a lengthy but inadequate list of what was in and what was not. Most of the speakers pointed out in different ways the failure to develop this idea in principle or in practise. The concept of National Statistics was exposed as flimsy and insubstantial. I was left with the feeling that the idea of National Statistics may preoccupy the GSS, Len Cook our new National Statistician, and a few other people, for a few years. But there was no indication that this preoccupation will make any practical difference other than to distract from more substantive work. The Framework Document confirmed the status of the National Statistician as a civil servant although the RSS response to the Green Paper pointed out the he/she would be a public servant. Both the chair of the meeting, Denise Lievesly, President of the RSS, and the first speaker Len Cook newly appointed National Statistician, referred to the 'Statistical' Commission' following up the same mistake made in the RSS response to the White Paper. The Green Paper did use the term Statistical Commission. But the White paper proposed the establishment of a *Statistics* Commission and that is what has been established. The mistakes are Freudian wishful thinking. The RSS would like the Commission to be statistical and focus on method because they have lost interest in statistics as facts about society. Len Cook presented a kind of neo-Claus-Moser kind of position emphasising that the National Statistician should not comment on the statistics but should aim to get a place at the policy making table by seeking the confidence of future ministers as well as the current government. The only thing that is really new is the establishment of the Statistics Commission. It took Sir John Kingman himself, Chair of the Statistics Commission and second speaker, to be the first to give the Commission its correct name. Kingman did not say very much, but said that his member were all prominent in their field and all had experience of large organizations, and that the Commission included three Vice-Chancellors (Calman, Kingman and Rhind). Kingman emphasised in his main talk and again in responding to the discussion that the activities of the Commission would be transparent, and he seemed to make it clear that the power and influence of the Commission will depend upon this transparency. The implication is that the effectiveness of the Commission will depend upon the qualities of the representations made to it. If these are clearly focused on matters of public interest then this committee of the great and good will make a public response. The Commission should not duck the many questions that the ONS and GSS have been able to just ignore. This puts the ball back in the court of those who believe that improvements should be made. It is up to us to make the representations. Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401 Email: [log in to unmask] 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%