More on the unchecked knife crime stats
The row over the release of unchecked knife crime stats by the Home office last December (see earlier posts here and here) has taken an extraordinary new twist today with the government's account of what happened looking increasingly shaky.
This afternoon, cabinet office Minister Kevin Brennan told committee of MPs that "the statistics produced within the Home Office on that fact sheet were approved by statisticians in the Home Office before publication".
Startled by a suggestion made by the committee chair (and revealed on this blog a few weeks ago) that the stats guys had done no such thing, a flustered Mr Brennan replied: "That is the information I have, but if that is incorrect, Chair, I'll correct the record".
A few hours later and my phone rings. It is a man from the Home Office. Did the statisticians know? "The answer is no", he replied.
"They were aware that statistics were being assembled, but saw nothing of the final product", he told me. "They did not see that fact sheet before it was published."
And that wasn't all he wanted to convey. The press office didn't sign off the fact sheet either. "The Home Office press office quite emphatically did not push for the publication of the fact sheet," the official stressed.
So who did? He says it wasn't the stats people and it wasn't the press people. Could it, I ask, have been someone in the private office of the Home Secretary? "That is all I can say. It was a Home Office publication. I cannot go further than that."
The fact that the statisticians apparently didn't know what was in the "fact sheet" raises new questions about the letter by the head of the civil service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to the head of the UK Statistics Authority, which had raised concerns about the release.
In the letter, Sir Gus writes that "one of the contributing factors to the decision" to put out dodgy figures on hospital admissions for stab wounds was that, while health service statisticians had demanded the figures be withheld, "the same objections were not being raised inside the HO".
Well, if the Home Office number-crunchers had no idea what was in the fact sheet, that might explain why.
Given the confused story emerging from different parts of Whitehall of exactly what happened last December, you can understand why today's Public Accounts Committee demanded a "comprehensive letter" from the Cabinet Office.
"We would like to know exactly what sequence of events, with what species of individuals taking actions, produced this result," said Tony Wright.
And now MPs are turning the spotlight on what was described in the committee today as the "special advisor network inside government".
In particular, the MPs wanted to know which of Gordon Brown's close aides inside Number Ten had overruled the objections of government statisticians to force the premature publication of knife crime figures in December.
We heard about an "e-mail trail" which reveals how a close advisor to the prime minister was "adamant" the data should be published - even though he or she knew the statistics had not been properly checked.
Regular readers will know of my close interest in this case having expressed my own disquiet over the statistics when they were released. And it was gratifying to hear the committee repeatedly refer to this blog as they questioned their witnesses.
First up were Sir Michael Scholar, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, and Karen Dunnell, the UK's National Statistician.
Sir Michael - appointed by the prime minister to restore trust in official figures - today accused one of Gordon Brown's closest advisers of "political interference" in the release of data. He confirmed that he'd seen a series of emails which, he made clear, had confirmed a senior NHS statistician had "forcibly" expressed "very considerable concern" about the use of figures on hospital admissions for stab wounds but had been overruled by one of Mr Brown's staff.
"I saw what [the chief NHS statistician] had said about that. I knew Number Ten were reported as being 'adamant' that the figures should be published and of course the figures were published."
The press release, published through the Home Office in December, had been designed to demonstrate the success of the government's knife crime initiatives. But the figures used were described by Sir Michael as "premature, irregular and selective". Their release was a "clear breach" of the official code, he said.
"I think if you are going to have trust in official statistics, you can't have statisticians being leaned upon by politicians, by ministers or advisers or policy civil servants who are working for them," he said.
So did ministers know anything? Did they lean on anyone? The committee seems determined to find out.
Tony Wright: "My understanding is that the special advisor at the Department of Health was told by the NHS statisticians that this could not be published under the code. The special adviser went to the Number Ten special advisor to take advice on this."
Michael Scholar: "That's consistent with what I know."
TW: "Was it a proper decision for a special advisor to take?"
MS: "The code of practice specifically bans political influence in the production of statistics. It is quite unequivocal under the code which was already in force."
TW: "Do you think it is plausible that a special advisor would have taken the decision to overrule statisticians and release information without taking political advice?"
MS: "I really couldn't comment on that."
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I have posted before on Nick Robinsons blog about his naive belief in believing anything that the Home Office claims in it's press releases.
Clearly Labour have been liberal with the facts, this does not surprise me, however, it is with great relief and amazement that a BBC journalist has managed to get away from the common purpose mindset of most of your colleagues, and highlight the glaring holes in Labour's fairytale!.
Complain about this comment
#1 flawedlogic
Amen. Pity the mods are so slow tonight.
Complain about this comment
The Labour government is still suffering from the monumental hangover after the glory days when Blair and Campbell thought they could get away with any amount of media manipulation. The straight faced promises of Mr.Brown to address this have come to nothing. Open government - if they still call it that - has proven to be simply opening multiple channels through which so many variables can be fed that it is nigh on impossible to get to the truth. The old days when government took place behind closed doors and leaked through carefully orchestrated briefings have given way to a mechanism for sewing utter confusion.
The one thing that has remained consistent is the perception that government really does not trust the people who elected them to office in the first place. It can hardly come as a surprise to them to find that the distrust is mutual - unless of course they really are as stupid as they are devious.
Complain about this comment
maybe its about time all government statistics were re examined, because nothing they produce these days is correct.
The figures get thinner and thinner as stabbings are put forward in different categories making the picture harder to follow and less informative to the truth of the situation, as the lines between are so easily smudged or in labours case fudged all to often to fit an agenda.
We should forget about knife crime as its only a percentage and have a stabbing crime as all to often the bottle proves mightier than the blade.
Complain about this comment
In the early days of this government the then Chancellor of tthe Exchequer was fond of announcing great rafts of spending promises.
It was then found that he had often just been repackaging many of them and announcing them again as if they were new initiatives; an early version of a poisoned asset!
Quite obviously, leopards do not change their spots!
Complain about this comment
There's lies, damn lies and NuLabour statistics !!
It is obvious that these are poorly educated people because if they were better educated, they would have read and understood the tale of the boy who cried "wolf" !!
My children read that in primary school !!
- Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive !!
Complain about this comment
There is a saying that the Government statistics is like lace underwear- reveals a lot, but hides the most important. :-)
Complain about this comment
#6
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive !!" [Sir Walter Scott, who turned down the post of Poet Laureate]
They don't need to practice any more, they have become very good at it.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
I wonder what is going on which we do not know. I do not trust the British government - unfortunately. A very good post by the way, Mark.
Complain about this comment
Government stats.
Nobody believes them anyway.
How could we, how could anyone believe a proven liar would tell the truth.
Complain about this comment
Whenever politicians make denials or accusations of making false statements, there is often an angry rebuttal and an attitude of 'how dare you accuse us of lying'.
Often Politicians don't lie. They just don't tell the truth either, nor do they ask the question they have been asked.
In the case of the interview between David Milliband, Foreign Secretary and Jon Snow of Channel 4 News the other evening, over the High Court case of the 'British' Guantanamo 'tortured' detainee, it was astonishing and so telling, to see David Milliband so outraged, yet not flushed with outrage.
Someone in control or someone with something to carefully hide.
Not surprising then that the Home Office or its unelected advisors will never be brought to account.
I'm sure if the public knew what really went on and what was really said behind the 'closed doors of power', there would be the most enormous outcry of outrage and anger.
Politic, from the dictionary:
"shrewd and skilful negotiating; devious, unscrupulous, expedient
Politics, from the dictionary;
"the art or science of government concerned with and holding control of practices and policies; activities characterized by artful and dishonest practices"
I will say no more.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure the statistics don't even begin to tell the full story of knife crimes in the UK. But it's hard to resist the temptation to point out that most knife crimes in Britain are not committed against people, at least not directly but against food in British kitchens. Britain's well deserved reputation for lack of cullinary skills suggests that knives used for stabbing people are only the tip of the iceberg, the vast majority of knive crimes are committed in the preparation of meals. And sadly, this is not criminal statutorily listed in the criminal code but it ought to be. Wake up Britain. Learn how to cook meat and vegetables without boiling them to death. Learn to use spices to add flavor. Change the grease more than once every six months when you make fried fish and chips. Get some flavor in your lives. That or send out for what you call "take-away" curry.
Complain about this comment
I was going to write that I can't believe that this govt still has the gall to think they can get away with this kind of behaviour, but after all, we've had our chances to get rid of them and not taken them. Perhaps it's becasue the other lot don't look too much better
As for MAii at #12 - these comments come from a man who has never been to Britain and spends his hours guzzling steak and chocolate. Having been to the US, I can say that these days they have very little to teach us, unless you consider portion size to be the number one culinary priority.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS