HC Deb 02 July 1981 vol 7 cc1127-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

12.4 am

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

The White Paper on the future of the Government Statistical Service, published on 29 April, which was inspired by the report made to the Prime Minister by Sir Derek Rayner, has caused very serious and widespread concern. It is the concern not only of the 2,500 civil servants whose jobs are put in jeopardy by this and earlier reviews but of distinguished academics and statisticians, among many others.

What the White Paper suggests is a fundamental shift in attitude towards research in general and social surveys in particular. If the Government's plans, as set out in the White Paper, are carried into effect, drastic cuts will be made in surveys covering social, industrial and economic data. Sir Claus Moser, a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, who must know more about the value of statistics than Sir Derek Rayner does about loss leaders, has delivered a biting attack on the Government's plans. From the tone of the Rayner exercise, said Sir Claus: …one would think that judging the need for statistics was like judging the need for paper clips. Sir Claus, as well as being a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, was head of the Government Statistical Service from 1967 to 1978. In his attack on the Government's plans he went on to say that the Rayner review looked at administrative costs but ignored the value of information and the vital need to educate Ministers, senior civil servants, industrialists and others to make better use of statistics in making more rational decisions. One might add the needs of Parliament and Select Committees to Sir Claus Moser's list, but Parliament is mentioned only twice in the White Paper.

The director of the Central Statistical Office, who is also head of the Government Statistical Service, said that one of the objectives of his office was …to make sure that as far as possible Parliament and the public have ready access to the same statistical information as is available to Ministers. The Rayner team commented that the director's statement of objectives was too open-ended and needed sharp emphasis on value for money.

The attitude of the DHSS Rayner team to the needs of Parliament was that Members of Parliament will have to be referred repeatedly to published sources. Select Committees and Royal Commissions may have to obtain their own information, with their own budgets for the purpose if the information is not already available within the Department…the Public Accounts Committee may have to be prepared to accept that staff and resources are not available to provide certain information. Select Committees are, of course, given the power to send for "persons, papers and records", and the idea that Departments are entitled to send the bill in afterwards for work carried out is totally alien to the traditional view of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.

The White Paper explicitly says that statistics should be reduced to what the Government believe they themselves need, and that alone. In totally rejecting that approach Sir Claus Moser said that he found it disturbing that the Government's criterion was simply that of what they needed when, through the supply of statistics, they had a duty to inform the public. He emphasised also that it was short-sighted to cut data checking, especially in the light of serious past errors, such as the under-recording of exports.

The White Paper envisages an overall cut of 25 per cent. in the Government Statistical Services, but in the case of the important social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys the cut in staff and resources could be one of 40 per cent.

For the sake of £750,000 to £1 million, which is much less than a drop in the bucket of total Government expenditure, a service of outstanding value is faced not just with upheaval but with possible destruction. For that sum, the Government are prepared to reduce essential data on housing and education, and to lower the quality of family expenditure data which the Rayner review itself recognised may be made less reliable under its proposals. In turn, that will damage the interests—by concealing their problems and needs—of some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society.

Professor Peter Townsend, the author of "Poverty in the United Kingdom", who knows more about the study of poverty than Sir Derek Rayner knows even about window dressing, argues that the Government's proposed cuts constitute nothing less than a restriction of democracy. He sees the Government's proposals as an attempt to …divert, contain and reduce criticisms of Government policies and, in particular, to restrict the flow of information that is required for the free discussion of industrial, economic and social conditions in Britain. That is a deeply serious charge and one that the Minister must not try to sweep under the carpet in replying to this debate tonight. There has been little, if any, consultation with outside bodies such as the NHS, the TUC, the CBI, local authorities and other bodies including pressure groups. These bodies are users of statistics and are involved in providing statistics. Surely they should be consulted.

Final decisions on the future of the social survey division have still to be made. Moreover, I appreciate that a Government statistical service working party is now considering the division's future and has been asked to report by October. The debate is, therefore, a timely opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the dangers of the Rayner proposals. As the Minister will know, the proposals were subjected to damning criticisms at a recent meeting of the Royal Statistics Society. There were over 300 participants at the meeting and the RSS has now set up a working party to reply to the Rayner proposals. The working party's report will clearly be an important statement and I trust that the Minister will agree with me tonight that no irreversible decision should be taken about the social survey division's future until he has had an opportunity to study the report. Meanwhile, the Minister should reflect on the statement made on 10 June by Professor Harvey Goldstein, chairman of the statistics committee of the Social Science Research Council, that the Rayner proposals would lead to a general deterioration of information and to worse decisions in Whitehall. The Rayner proposals are couched in the jargon of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The public are assured that their purpose is to discriminate between what is essential and non-essential, to secure value for money and to end "bureaucratic nonsense" which, we are told, can all be done without detracting from the quality of work carried out by the Government statistical service. These apparently disinterested and commendable aims obscure the facts about the extent and distribution of the proposed cuts. At the same time, they discourage examination of the flawed logic which has made the social survey division a target for special attack.

The Rayner team regards even the uses made of the general household survey as "desirable rather than essential", which means that, in their view, fundamental social questions on which it casts light are something with which Whitehall decision-makers need not necessarily be concerned. As we have seen, it is also inherent in the Rayner philosophy that information should be collected not for the information of Parliament, or for the public at large, but only for the purposes of the Government. This again is a matter of considerable importance. Indeed, it begs the whole question about the role of information services in a democratic society.

It has long been accepted that information paid for at public expense should be disseminated as widely as possible. Now it is proposed that such information should be available only to substantiate preconceived political objectives. That would, of course, very much strengthen executive government vis-a-vis Parliament and the public at large and is not a change that should be casually approved. The White Paper states: There is no more reason for Government to act as universal provider in the statistical field than in any other". The implication here, as one commentator has already said, is that anyone seeking data paid for out of public funds is a kind of statistical services scrounger.

In undertaking its work, the social survey division provides national coverage as well as taking account of regional disparities, and the Scottish Rayner team points out in its report that if the size of national samples is drastically reduced, reliable regional figures can no longer be derived from the data. Rayner's critics point out that official statisticians are much more likely to be granted access to otherwise confidential data, such as health records, than private sector research staff. Nor is the limited scope of small-scale research its only disadvantage. The OPCS enjoys facilities for the recording, storage and retrieval of information unparalleled elsewhere and has, in addition, a highly skilled and experienced staff of unimpeachable reputation. The facilities and staff of the OPCS comprise a most valuable asset not only to Whitehall but to all of us, and for the Government to put some of its major functions at risk is grossly irresponsible.

The effect of the proposals in the White Paper on the dissemination of statistics is likely to be a restriction of access to information, standards will inevitably fall and, above all, sensible planning will be virtually impossible. Not content with narrowing the breadth and scope of social research, the White Paper recommends the shrinking of sample bases of surveys and the lowering of the quality of analysis. This could mean that minority groups no longer showed up in the continuous surveys, such as the family expenditure and general household surveys. In consequence, the results of these surveys would become less comprehensive and useful. Indeed, this cannot fail to occur unless positive steps are taken to maintain the representativeness of survey work.

OPCS staff, for their part—and there are many who share their view—do not feel that the Rayner review gave serious consideration to these issues. The continuous surveys, which are a major part of the social survey division's work, would, if Rayner's proposals go ahead, cease to be an accurate reflection of the social and economic characteristics of the population. Fundamental information about spending patterns will be affected. Yet this information forms the essential basis of the retail price index, and the Rayner report admits that the family expenditure survey data may be less reliable under its proposals. Essential information on employment, attitudes to work and use of public services will also be lacking because of the narrowing of the basis of inquiry. The Equal Opportunities Commission is known to be concerned that its law enforcement functions, and also its general duty to promote equality of opportunity, will be hindered if reductions in sample size—for instance, of the GHS—are implemented, because detailed statistics will become less reliable and less frequent. So we are also talking about the future of equal opportunities in this debate. The EOC is dependent on good official statistics for monitoring the position of women and does not have a large research budget from which it can arrange its own data collection.

What is also clear is that ad hoc surveys will suffer most of all from the proposed cuts. The social survey division has conducted ad hoc surveys on virtually every aspect of contemporary society, from health and welfare to employment and leisure. Recent work has included the monitoring of the TOPS scheme for the Manpower Services Commission, a survey of drinking habits and a report on the problems of one-parent families for the Finer committee. A survey of public attitudes to the deaf will help to break down the barriers which, both through accident and design, prevent deaf people from full participation in the life of their community. Also, in the field of disability, the survey carried out in the late 1960s by Amelia Harris for the OPCS on "The Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain" has been a standard work of reference on the characteristics and requirements of disabled people.

This monumental work of international renown was the first attempt to draw together information pertaining to all aspects of handicap: employment, housing, health and leisure. It is a detailed and comprehensive guide for planners to the accurate and economic allocation of resources. It has, in fact, been the foundation for the development of benefits and services for the disabled over the past decade. It is, none the less, in urgent need now of updating since the shifting pattern of need requires regular monitoring. Yet if the Rayner proposals are put into effect it is doubtful whether such extensive research will ever be undertaken again. On the contrary, as Valerie Ellis, of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants points out: Had Rayner reported in 1966, we might well never have had the Amelia Harris Survey at all". The fact that the social survey division is an integral part of the Government machine ensures continuous contact between the survey staff and policy-makers within client departments. The social survey division is therefore in a much better position to understand the needs of departments, to evaluate and anticipate long-term developments, and to ensure that social survey work is practical and relevant, than private survey agencies could possibly be.

The Rayner report envisages that the social survey division will continue its advisory role, but it is difficult to see how this function can be performed adequately if the responsibility for the overall conduct of surveys is taken away from it. The suggested privatisation of research, leading to the "contracting out" of surveys to external agencies deemed to be equally effective, is unsatisfactory on grounds other than narrow criteria of technical efficiency. Quality must be seen as a continuing, not a one-off, need, for, as the OPCS points out: The highest standards are essential in policy-related research, when a mistaken decision can waste resources worth many hundreds of times the cost of providing information in the first place". The intention of financing future work out of the existing budgets of client Departments, rather than from the central budget of the OPCS, will force Departments to be highly selective about the research that they undertake if they are to maintain anything near existing standards. In the case of Departments without substantial research budgets of their own, there will be no access to specialised information at all.

The only conclusion one can draw from the favour shown by the Government for the Rayner proposals is that they want deliberately to distance themselves from the effects of their policies on people generally. Indeed, the Rayner team themselves conceded that cuts affecting the work of the general household survey would be likely to create an outcry that the Government does not want to know about the well-being of its citizens. That may seem a trivial matter to some, but most people will regard the Government's unconcern for the social effects of their policies as both inexcusable and indefensible. Many will see the Government's attitude as being based more on paranoia than concern with true economy and real efficiency. Quite clearly, it also attacks the basis of democracy since every Government should be prepared to answer informed criticism. In future, criticism may have to be based on guesswork rather than evidence and debates on rancour instead of rational discussion.

There is no significant financial benefit to be had from the Rayner proposals. Indeed, the savings in central Government expenditure may be offset by increased expenditure on data collection in other parts of the public sector. To claim that the cause of efficiency will be better served by them is grotesquely misleading. The sacrificing of essential research leads, not to streamlined efficiency, but to the very "bureaucratic nonsense" which Rayner purports to oppose. It is, of course, always likely that bad decisions will be made on the basis of the best information, but it can be nothing more than luck if the reverse happens. Yet it is a "pot luck" approach on which the Government now want to rely for future policy making. Freedom of information also has to be considered in this context. A free and just society cannot do without adequate survey and research facilities. Nor can it afford to allow information to be hidden from the public through fear that it might stimulate pressure for social change.

In a recent letter to the press about the threat now posed to the social survey division, it was stated that for the Government to cripple the division's work would be an act of official vandalism. That is a very widely held view among people who know what the social survey division has achieved. The Government will expose themselves to severe censure if they fail to respond positively to the criticisms that are being made of their proposals, and I hope that the Minister will show in his reply tonight that he recognises the force and validity of these criticisms.

To be kind to him, some would put it to the Minister that he knows full well that Sir Claus Moser, Professors Townsend and Goldstein, Valerie Ellis of the IPCS and all the Government's other well-informed critics are right, but that he dare not gainsay the findings of a report, however damaging, from a man who was personally appointed to his task by the Prime Minister. Should that be his feeling, let the Minister reflect on the frankness and courage of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who said last Saturday, in a reference to the Prime Minister's other economic adviser: Why pay Professor Walters £50,000 a year when you can buy his ruddy pamphlets for 25 pence? Let the Minister speak with the same frankness and courage tonight, even if it means criticising the Prime Minister's other poodle.

12.23 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young)

I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). In my reply, I hope to give some assurances in those areas where I think that he is mistaken. I also hope to counter some of his more extravagant claims, namely, that our proposals are based on paranoia, or a wish to gag democracy and obstruct social change—or, indeed, that the Government have any wish to attack the foundations of democracy.

The right hon. Gentleman's concern for the disabled is well known and his observations about the relationship between social research and policy must, of course, command respect. I shall have something to say about that in a few moments, but first I want to remind the House of what Sir Derek Rayner actually proposed, and what the White Paper on Government statistical services has actually had to say about the work of the social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.

In January 1980 the Minister for the Civil Service asked Sir Derek Rayner to oversee a review of the statistical services throughout Government. The aim of the review was to examine critically the statistical services available to each Minister, in order to establish what was essential and what less so, to simplify administration, to look for ways of improving efficiency and getting better value for money and to decide on the best arrangements for the efficient future management of statistical work. The social survey division of the OPCS was included in the review.

During the course of 1980 a report on the statistical services in each Department was submitted to the Minister concerned and Sir Derek Rayner presented his report on the interdepartmental aspects of the review to the Prime Minister in December 1980. All these reports are available in the Library of the House and more generally. Sir Derek's report comprised some 30 recommendations, of which two related specifically to the social survey division—one related to the continuous surveys and the other to the ad hoc surveys. It appears to the right hon. Gentleman that the report has more to say about costs than benefits, but I think that this is largely because costs can be measured explicitly, whereas the value of statistics is more often a matter for judgment. But the Government are resolved to cut out activities where there is insufficient benefit for the costs incurred.

It is not correct to say that there was no consultation with outside bodies. Sir Derek Rayner's report lists the names of bodies consulted, including the CBI, the TUC and the Organisation of Professional Users of Statistics.

I turn to the recommendation affecting the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and deal first with the continuous surveys. The social survey division carries out three continuous multi-purpose surveys—the family expenditure survey, the general household survey and the international passenger survey. In addition, the division pays a market research firm to carry out the national food survey, so the principle of contracting oil: to the private sector already exists and is accepted by OPCS.

Sir Derek recognised the usefulness of these surveys but suggested that there was scope for economies without damaging the essential needs of government. The Government have accepted these recommendations in principle, and the White Paper published by the Lord President of the Council reported that savings of about 25 per cent. could be made in the continuous surveys in the following ways.

First, the general household survey sample will be reduced, and field and clerical procedures will be considerably slimmed down. These changes will start from 1982. Secondly, subject to a final check of feasibility, the family expenditure survey will be merged with the national food survey. A decision will be taken in the near future. Thirdly, three options for matching the international passenger survey to essential Government needs are being considered. The aim is to save at least 25 per cent. of the current costs. Again, a decision will be made shortly.

The important point to register is that these three valuable continuous multi-purpose surveys are to remain; they are not to be abolished, but the Government believe that they can be run at lower cost and still meet essential needs. Judging from some of the comment in the press, one might think that Sir Derek had recommended that these surveys should be abolished, but this is not the case. They are to continue, but at lower cost.

So much for the continuous surveys. It is the proposals for ad hoc surveys that have aroused, if anything, greater concern. An ad hoc survey is a one-off project to fill a particular gap in information. The social survey division provides an ad hoc capability as an allied service to other Departments. That means that it pays for the full cost of these surveys from its own Vote, but customer Departments have, of course, to justify the expenditure.

There is no doubt that many important and valuable ad hoc surveys have been carried out over the years. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them, and the list could be added to. All these are in important areas, where the Government need reliable information.

Sir Derek Rayner's report cast some doubt on the need for so many ad hoc surveys as the present social survey division capacity provides. In particular, he thought that greater use could be made of the continuous surveys to avoid the need for some ad hoc surveys. Moreover, he argued that there was a well-developed survey capability in the private sector and that it would usually be cheaper to use this than employ the social survey division of the OPCS. Furthermore, he maintained that in future Departments ought to pay for surveys directly and not have them as an allied service. In the move to a payment system, he suggested, there should be no transfer of funds from the OPCS to customer Departments. Consequently, his recommendation for ad hoc surveys was that the aim should be to contract work out where private sector costs were less than those of the public service and that Departments should in future pay for surveys out of existing research funds.

These were far-reaching recommendations. Sir Derek estimated that if the OPCS concentrated on the continuous surveys, carried out a handful of ad hoc surveys and provided advice to Departments on survey methods and management, there would be a saving of up to 100 posts, and a further £1½ million if there were no transfer of funds.

The White Paper issued by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council stated that the Government had called for a further review of the commissioning of ad hoc surveys to make greater use of the private sector where this could do the work as effectively as and at lower cost than the public service. This review has now started, and it is hoped that there will be proposals for Ministers to consider in the autumn. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought that of course Ministers will not take final decisions before we have the working party's report.

There are a number of practical problems to be examined in the meantime, such as how to compare public and private sector costs, how to compare quality and so on. In the course of this review there will be the opportunity to consult widely outside Government circles and to assess the experience of other countries. The Secretary of State has agreed to consult the Civil Service unions before final decisions are taken.

I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I can make some general remarks about the Government's objectives. It is not the Government's intention to do without the survey information necessary for planning the future of social services or for monitoring the effects of social policy. However, we believe that decisions on whether to conduct particular surveys should be taken in full knowledge of the cost of alternative ways of meeting requirements. Repayment puts the customer Department in a better relationship with the contractor and allows the customer to choose the most cost-effective contractor. This may not mean always selecting the lowest tender, for the quality of survey results is important. The aim has to be to get the best value for money. Many think that that will be best achieved by preserving a strong ad hoc survey capability in the social survey division—and that is a possible outcome. But it would be quite wrong, in my view, for the social survey division to be exempted from examination at a time when the need for, and the cost effectiveness of, so many parts of the public service is being questioned. In making their examination the Government will pay close attention to the quality of service required and we shall balance this against the cost.

One important point made in Sir Derek Rayner's report is that the social survey division should continue to act as a central co-ordinating body for Government survey research and provide a technical and managerial advisory service as required by Departments, and it is asserted that Departments should consult it about surveys before undertaking or contracting work within its competence. This emphasises the high regard that is held for the technical competence of the social survey division. If Departments take its advice more frequently in the future than they have in the past, there could well be increased value for money from surveys contracted out to the private sector.

It is significant, therefore, that Sir Derek Rayner's report accepts that all the present functions of the social survey division should remain intact but that the size should be questioned. The question is not "Should there be a social survey division?", or even, "Should it do ad hoc surveys?". The question is "How big an ad hoc capability do the Government need within the public service?"

Even if it is concluded that this capability should be smaller than at present, it will be possible, as it is now, to contract surveys to the private sector to meet additional needs. The division should, for example, have the capacity to handle any new major survey of the handicapped and impaired such as that carried out by Miss Amelia Harris in 1969.

I do not share the view of the hon. Member that Sir Derek Rayner's proposals, and the decisions the Government have so far taken on them, weaken in any way the democratic basis upon which knowledge of the people and of their behaviour and attitudes is obtained through social surveys and made available widely in publications. That has been a feature of the process of government in this country for the past 40 years and will continue. The public service has grown tremendously in the past 20 years and the statistical services with it. It is right to take stock of all aspects of that growth to see whether they continue to be justified.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The Minister has little time. I specifically mentioned the Equal Opportunities Commission and the view of the Rayner team. Will the Minister comment on that?

Sir George Young

I said that when the working party was preparing its final report there would be an opportunity for consultations and discussions. If the Equal Opportunities Commission, or any other body, has anxieties, it should accept the offer and make its views known quickly.

I hope that I have said enough to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the Government's intentions in this matter. There is no intention of doing without information that is needed to plan for the future of social services or to monitor present policies. There is no intention to disband entirely the services at present provided by the social survey division. It does not face destruction, as the hon. Gentleman implied.

However, changes are being considered in the commissioning of surveys, and the need for surveys will be increasingly examined to ensure that only essential work is undertaken and that it is done in the most cost-effective way. This may mean that the ad hoc survey capability of Government is reduced and that it makes do with less than before. That is entirely appropriate at a time when the need to reduce public expenditure is so great.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o' clock.