 |
 |
Small correction - Barry Werner isn't Chair of the Labour Market Statistics User Group - I am - which was a decision we took largely on the grounds that the User Group should be chaired by an independent user member rather than a provider, though Barry has been extraordinarily helpful and is Secretary of the group. Bill Wells is an exception to the rule of civil servants speaking the departmental line, and therefore welcome. However, as Ray has pointed out, we have had plenty of disagreements. I suspect that both Bill and I find it extremely uncomfortable when we find ourselves agreeing on anything, even the time of day. I think Ray would share the sentiment. In meetings, Bill Wells gives good value, usually being thought-provoking. I understand that he is much the same inside the Department. It would almost always be a mistake to believe that Bill was a spokesman for the Secretary of State of the day. The worry is that the opposite may too often be the case. I'd welcome Bill and other civil servants speaking out with their own personal views. In his presentation to LMSUG he probably went rather further than a Minister would have gone - and this gives those of us outside the Department indications of the views being presented to Ministers. We can then present counter-arguments. The DWP certainly does commit to publishing the research it commissions through its research programme - and does so. They may publish as Working papers or as In-House reports rather than as full research reports, but publication usually happens reasonably quickly. Some Departments publish inconvenient research between Christmas and New Year - but I haven't seen the DWP doing too much of that. However, all Departments do much research themselves to look at ideas before going out to formal research contracts, and some of this is assisted by outside consultants on consultancy rather than research terms - i.e. not necessarily for publication. There are problems with Departmental research commissioning - but to my eye these are rather of ommission than commission, and sometimes of inappropriate methods specified. Obviously research funds are limited, but there are some areas that have been under-researched by methods adequate to the needs. Unfortunately other research funds seem to be used too much on investigating academic debates rather than on independently investigating things which Departments have decided not to research (for whatever reason). --------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bivand Head of Analysis and Statistics Direct Line: 020 7840 8335 Inclusion 3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP Tel: 020 7582 7221 Fax: 020 7582 6391 Inclusion website: www.cesi.org.uk The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox. The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. -----Original Message----- From: ray thomas [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 07 April 2006 12:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: THE INDEPENDENCE FOR STATISTICS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT - The Civil Servants role[Scanned] I’m very appreciative of the work my colleague Kevin McConway has done in reporting on the consultation for the new civil service code. That might be a real advance. But at present there is quite a variation in the emphasis given in versions of the existing code. The official Directgov website is unequivocal: “The duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost to the minister in charge of the department in which he or she is serving.” From where I sit it appears that the Labour Government has gone further than any other in imposing its views and that of its ministers on the world in ways which go well beyond the civil service − although civil servants are part of, and complicit, in the process. The most obvious way this has happened has been through research grants. Grants have been widely offered in recent years to carry our research that is closely tied to government policies. My impression is that the research results are typically inconclusive − that suggests that this method of commissioning research is not optimum. But if the research findings go against government policy then the report is just not published. A few cases where the findings of research on crime were suppressed were outlined by Robert Verkiak in the Guardian on 13 February. But there is no saying how many cases of suppression have occurred − because the Government controls publication of of research it has financed. Civil servants have other ways of controlling the flow of information. Last October I attended a seminar on regional policy organised jointly by the Regional Studies Association and the Department of Trade and Industry. But the role played by the RSA was entirely passive. The issues were presented as belonging to Government Policy. The main speaker was Stephen Nickell the principle ideologue of the Government’s labour markety policy. The academic speakers faithully reported government supported surveys that supported Government labour market policies. Prominent critics of labour market statistics and labour market policy, like Stephen Fothergill of the Sheffield Hallam Centre, had to get the attention of the chair in order to make a contribution to the discussion. There is also other evidence that the RSA seems to have lost the ability to distinguish between evidence that aims to describe the real world and the portrayal of the real world in Government policy. In November there was a seminar at the RSS organised by the Labour Market Statistics Users’ Group. The Chair of the so-called User’s Group is Barry Werner, Director, Labour Market Division of the Office for National Statistics. At the seminar Bill Wells, a prominent member of the DWP gave a blatently biased paper (“my personal views”) that selectively quoted statistics to support the government’s welfare to work policy. Bill Wells is a serious obstacle to labour market research. He was a staunch defender of the corrupt and misleading ‘workforce’ unemployment statistics for local areas that disguised the nature and growth of inner city unemployment. This episode does not appear to have been a setback in his civil service career. He is friendly and open and even sent me a copy of his .ppt presentation for appraisal. No one has ever told Bill Wells that he should see himself as a public servant. I don’t think that anyone has ever told told Bill Wells that “the duty of all public officers to discharge public functions reasonably” or even that he should think of himself as a public officer. Neither is it clear to me that this bit of gloss quoted by Kevin is actually seen as applying to civil servants. Ray ****************************** -----Original Message----- From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of K.J.Mcconway Sent: 04 April 2006 15:57 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: THE INDEPENDENCE FOR STATISTICS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (ii) "The idea of a statistical service independent of government is a nonsense because the civil service code requires that statisticians and others within department support the Minister." Ray keeps saying this. In my view, though there's clearly something in it, it is misleading to take it out of context. First, the relevant bit of the current code actually says: "Civil servants should serve their Administration in accordance with the principles set out in this Code and recognising: · the accountability of civil servants to the Minister or, as the case may be, to the Assembly Secretaries and the National Assembly as a body or to the office holder in charge of their department; · the duty of all public officers to discharge public functions reasonably and according to the law; · the duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, and to uphold the administration of justice; and · ethical standards governing particular professions." That is, accountability to the Minister is only one of the things that has to be "recognised". Another route of accountability could be set up by Statute, which is what the consultation document is proposing (though it's far from clear, to me at least, exactly who will be accountable to what or whom). Then, if this new law were came into conflict with accountability to the Minister, the Code does not actually say which takes precedence. Second, and perhaps (depending on how things turn out) more important, there is a new draft civil service code of conduct, currently out for consultation (till April 21). There's a copy at http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/pdf/CSCodeOfConduct.pdf . This new version looks very unlike the existing one and does not mention accountability at all. The only text I can find in it that says anything along the lines of "accountability to Ministers" is under the heading Political Impartiality: "Civil servants must maintain political impartiality: you must serve the Government to the best of your ability in a way which is consistent with the requirements of this Code and irrespective of your own political beliefs." But the other requirements of the code include complying with the law and being objective (in ways that are spelt out). And the conditionality goes only one way; a civil servant has to serve the Govt to the best of their ability only in a way that is consistent with acting legally and being objective, but they don't have to act legally or be objective in a way that is consistent with serving the Govt to the best of their ability. If the code stays like this when it comes into force, and if (as the Statistics consultation document proposes, insofar as I follow it) there's a statutory requirement for a Govt statistician in a ministerial department to act in a way laid down by a central statistics office that is a non-ministerial department, then that requirement takes precedence over the requirement on the statistician to serve the minister. At least that's how it looks to me. ************************************** ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] *******************************************************