³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Two worlds collide: Planet Statistics, a strict environment governed by evidence and hard data, has once again smashed into Planet Westminster, an ecosystem run on much more subtle rules around public opinion and mood management.

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas' 'leaked' letter bemoaning the "naive" and potentially "sinister" decision of the Office for National Statistics to release migration figures early because they were "topical", is part of the wreckage from this culture clash.

As is statistics watchdog that statisticians are being "pilloried" for publishing independent and objective statistics.

What this is really about is the well-oiled wheels of the government communication machine being frustrated by the grit of tough new rules on the use of official data.

It was Gordon Brown who, as Chancellor, championed the introduction of a strict code on the use of government statistics. He was anxious at the lack of public trust in official figures and promised a "new politics" free of spin and manipulation.

But almost immediately, his own staff fell foul of the new rules in spectacular fashion. Last December, a special advisor in Gordon Brown's office demanded the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Office publish helpful statistics on hospital admissions for stab wounds even though No 10 had been told by senior stats people that the figures were "potentially inaccurate and may give the wrong impression".

After Sir Michael complained to Downing Street that the affair had been "corrosive of public trust in official statistics", the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, revealed in a that all officials and advisors had been told of "the importance the Government and permanent secretaries attach to the observance of the ".

Every spin doctor and press officer was reminded that they could not play fast and loose with official figures. The code was clear. They must:
• Publish statistical reports in an orderly manner.
• Publish statistical reports according to a published timetable.
• Present statistics impartially and objectively.
• Ensure that those producing statistical reports are protected from any political pressures that might influence the production or presentation of the statistics.

This was a massive cultural shock for those in government who had been used to "managing" the flow of such information. Power had flowed from the spin doctors to the number-crunchers and ministers were frustrated.

Frustration turned to anger, however, when last month the ONS brought forward the release of sensitive new figures on immigration because the National Statistician, Karen Dunnell, thought they were 'topical'.

The statistics, showing how foreign migrant jobs had increased while domestic employment had fallen, emerged in the midst of the wild cat strikes over 'British jobs for British workers'. But the numbers were not due to be released until last week as part of the regular migration statistics.

In science terms it made sense: ongoing public debate about nationality and employment would be enriched by having hard data made available.

In political terms it was highly controversial: ministers have accused the ONS of "playing politics" and naivety in releasing information that inflamed an already difficult situation. The opposition has of launching "hysterical rants against the independent statistics office".

Ministerial teeth-gnashing is all the greater because of a perceived unfairness. While government must abide by the rules, opposition politicians don't have to. Cabinet Minister Kevin Brennan there might be an agreement that if Whitehall stuck to the code, so must the government's opponents. But he must realise that this would be almost impossible to enforce and might frustrate scrutiny of the executive.

The big idea behind the creation of a statistics code was to "build public trust and confidence in the statistical system as a whole". The rows and scandals surrounding its introduction are likely to have achieved quite the opposite.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?