OSR Intervention: Test and Trace

Date of mention: 2 June 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During a debate on the Government’s COVID-19 response on 2 June 2020, Sir David Norgrove’s letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was referenced in two exchanges.

1.“On managing the virus, one of the tests is on whether we can manage the virus, but, as the Secretary of State has said, that depends on testing and tracing. There is now capacity for more than 200,000 tests, but there is still a lack of clarity about how that figure is arrived at. The UK Statistics Authority has written to him today, saying that his figures are still “far from complete and comprehensible”, that the testing statistics still fall well short of standards in the Code, and that it is not surprising that testing data is mistrusted…” – Jonathan Ashworth MP

“The hon. Gentleman asks, rightly, about the NHS test and trace capability. That is up and running, and working well. He asks how I can say it is working well. It is working well because thousands of people have been contacted and their contacts are being traced. So the system is working. We absolutely will publish data on that, but, as the letter from the UK Statistics Authority this morning shows, it is very important that we get that data publication right. We will work with the UKSA to make sure it is happy with how we are publishing that data, to make sure we get the data published in a reasonable and sensible way, one that also supports the operation of NHS test and trace, which we agree is a critical part of the next stage. I commit to publishing that data and to working with the UKSA on how it is put together.” – Matt Hancock MP

…

2.“…Does the Secretary of State agree that public confidence is critical in this next phase of dealing with the virus? There is no doubt that confidence has plummeted over the last few weeks. Does he agree that to restore that confidence we need a great deal more transparency about the test, track and trace system—numbers, who has been contacted, and so on—so people feel that if they are contacted action will follow?” – Lucy Powell MP

“The hon. Lady raises a very important point about test and trace. Subject to patient confidentiality, which I take very seriously, of course we will publish data on the test and trace system and will work with the UK Statistics Authority on the best way to do that. I spoke to David Norgrove earlier today about that and how our teams should work together to make sure we can publish it in the right and appropriate way.” – Matt Hancock MP

OSR Intervention: Test and Trace

Date of mention: 3 June 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During Prime Minister’s Questions on 3 June 2020, Sir Keir Starmer MP, Leader of the Opposition, referenced Sir David Norgrove’s letter of 2 June to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

“…But the problem when the Prime Minister uses statistics is that the UK Statistics Authority has had concerns on more than one occasion. In a strongly worded letter to the Health Secretary yesterday, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority said that the statistics “still fall well short of…expectations. It is not surprising that given their inadequacy data on testing are so widely criticised and often mistrusted.” Can the Prime Minister see how damaging this is to public trust and confidence in his Government? – Sir Keir Starmer MP

OSR Intervention: Test and Trace

Date of mention: 3 June 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lord’s debate on the Covid-19 response on 3 June 2020, Sir David Norgrove’s letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was mentioned during two exchanges.

1.“It is very concerning that the Government are refusing to publish information about the reproduction rate per region, the viability of home test kits, the number of people tested daily, and the number of people contacted under the new contact tracing system, to list a few examples. Furthermore, the data that the Government have published has been decried as highly misleading by the head of the UK Statistics Authority. Will the Minister commit to urgently publishing these figures to ensure openness, transparency and public confidence in the Government’s approach?

Does the Minister share the concerns of scientists, including members of SAGE, and public health leaders that the Government’s NHS Test and Trace system was not yet robust enough to quash any resurgence of the virus and should have been “fully working” before lockdown measures were eased? A final comment on “test, track and trace” is that the Cummings saga was bad enough, but we now have the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority making very robust suggestions that government presentation may not be what it seems. Sir David Norgrove has pulled no punches and makes it abundantly clear that he thinks the presentation of testing numbers in England is unacceptable.” – Baroness Thornton

…

2.“…Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics (sic) wrote its second letter in four weeks to the Secretary of State, challenging him in the bluntest terms and accusing him of obfuscation and confusion on the number of daily tests carried out. Can the Minister give the House a date when we will be able to see real and consistent data on testing, approved by the ONS, back- dated and adjusted, so that there is no room for any misunderstanding?” – Baroness Brinton

“…I utterly agree with both noble Baronesses that people need to be able to understand the data—it is a really important project—but perhaps I may share a genuine and honest dilemma. We have sought to publish data as promptly and in as much quantity as we humanly can. The result of that, though, is that it is not all audited and checked and therefore it is often revised. That creates the kind of problems which David Norgrove has quite rightly identified. We are working extremely closely with David to try to close the gap. We are working closely with the Office for National Statistics to ensure that all future data is fully audited, but it is usual in peacetime to take months to iron out these processes before the publication of official data, and data is not published on a daily basis for exactly the reasons identified by both noble Baronesses. We have real and consistent data published by the ONS which is properly audited. That is completely robust data and we try our hardest to make right the data that goes into the daily updates. However, there is a tension between being prompt and being procedural, and we have sought hard to try to hit the right combination of the two.” – Lord Bethell

OSR Intervention: Test and Trace

Date of mention: 10 June 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During a debate on 10 June 2020 on Health Protection Regulations, our interventions on Test and Trace statistics were mentioned.

“We take no pleasure from the fact that the system is in chaos and that the UK Statistics Authority has been forced to intervene over concerns about testing data, or that the Association of Directors of Public Health has called on the Government to delay easing lockdown until the tracing system has been proved to be more robust and there can be confidence about what the impact will be on continuing trends in infection rates…” – Justin Madders MP

“…I absolutely appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire for data on the testing programme—both the numbers and what they tell us. However, as he said, it is really important that we share accurate data that is supported by the UK Statistics Authority, and we are working with it to make sure that we share reliable, robust, informative data on the testing programme.” – Helen Whately MP

OSR Intervention: No Recourse to Public Funds

Date of mention: 18 June 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During a debate on the impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Communities on 18 June 2020, Stephen Timms MP referenced his letter to the Authority on those with no recourse to public funds, which was treated as casework.

“…Last month, I asked the Home Office a written parliamentary question: how many people were given leave to remain with no recourse to public funds in 2019? I received the reply on 20 May: “The information you have requested is not assured to the standard required by ONS for publication and as it would be too costly to do so, we are unable to provide it” – in other words, “We’re not going to bother answering the question.” I have asked the UK Statistics Authority what it makes of that answer and the attempt to hide behind the Office for National Statistics. I am looking forward to receiving the chair’s reply, which will arrive, I believe, quite shortly…” – Stephen Timms MP

OSR Intervention: COVID-19 prevalence in Scotland

Date of mention: 30 July 2020

Where mentioned: Scottish Parliament

Details:

During a meeting of the Scottish Parliament on 30 July 2020, our intervention on COVID-19 prevalence in Scotland was referred to in debate by Jackson Carlaw MSP.

“The First Minister concluded her statement by reminding everybody of the importance of facts. However, when Parliament met on 9 July, the First Minister said repeatedly, in response to questions from me, that the prevalence rate of the coronavirus was five times lower in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Subsequently, that figure was widely reported and repeated in the media. This morning, the director general for regulation at the UK Statistics Authority wrote to us and—I know—to the Scottish Government as well, giving his verdict on whether that statistic was true, and his verdict is damning. When challenged at the time, the Scottish Government said that it compared its Scottish Government Covid-19 modelling to a survey statistic for England, but when the UK Statistics Authority investigated and asked for the source of the statistic, the Scottish Government changed its story and said that it was something else entirely—it was now a figure from a London university, and it was for the whole UK. Why did the Scottish Government mislead the public about the source of that claim?” – Jackson Carlaw MSP

“I do not think that that is the case. I stand by the view, which I think is backed up by the evidence, that the prevalence of the virus is significantly lower in Scotland right now than it is in England, although it is not something that I have a shred of complacency about. The issue with the statistic that I cited before is that the English part of that UK statistic has not been published. That is not down to me; the UK Government has not published it. Perhaps Jackson Carlaw will join me in encouraging the UK Government to do so…” – Nicola Sturgeon MSP, First Minister

“Well, I am afraid that that is not what the UK Statistics Authority had to say. Here is what it said: “the sources you were provided with do not allow for a meaningful comparison to be made.” However, that is exactly what the First Minister did … Here is what the UK Statistics Authority says: “We do not think that the sources above allow for a quantified and uncaveated comparison of the kind that was made.” Will the First Minister give us a straight admission that she made a comparison that she may have chosen to believe but that was not true?” – Jackson Carlaw MSP

“The figures were not published—I accept the views of the statistics regulator on that—but I have a few points to make … I may have used a statistic that was not published—the statistics regulator has, rightly and properly, made his views known on that, and I respect them—but, for goodness’ sake, there are plenty of other published measures that lead to the same conclusion…” – Nicola Sturgeon MSP, First Minister

“…The First Minister is well prepared, and she is the first to bring a statistic to any debate. She made that claim about the prevalence rate seven times, and again as recently as last week. It was not a slip of the tongue. Neither is it for the First Minister to say that she thinks that it is all fine—that it is all very complicated and that she has to try to imagine what the numbers were—or to suggest that the UK Statistics Authority has been anything other than damning. The First Minister knows that the prevalence statistic was wrong, and she knows why it was wrong.” – Jackson Carlaw MSP

OSR Intervention: No Recourse to Public Funds

Date of mention: 14 September 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details: 

During a debate on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on 14 September 2020, our intervention on no recourse to public funds was mentioned in two exchanges.

1.“Another concern, as we have heard, is the lack of official data. There has been an exchange between the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the Home Office on the issue…” – Baroness Lister of Burtersett

…

2. “The noble Baroness also talked about the provision of data. In his letter to the UK Statistics Authority, the Home Office chief statistician committed “to further investigate the administrative data we hold to assess whether it can provide any meaningful information on the issue of hardship specifically”. However, given the fluid nature of migration, it is quite difficult to provide an accurate figure of how many people are subject to NRPF, but we will do our best to get some meaningful figures.” – Baroness Williams of Trafford

OSR Intervention: 2020 GCSE and A-level exams

Date of mention: 23 September 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lords debate on A-Level results on 23 September 2020, our review of the use of statistical models to predict exam results, which was prompted by an item of casework, was referenced.

“My Lords, all four nations of the United Kingdom attempted to use this method. At the moment, the Office for Statistics Regulation, which is part of the UK Statistics Authority, is looking at the algorithms used for all four nations. However, it is intended that exams will go ahead this summer.” – Baroness Berridge

OSR Intervention: No Recourse to Public Funds

Date of mention: 6 October 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lords debate on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on 6 October 2020, Lord Parkinson of Whiteley Bay referenced our intervention on no recourse to public funds.

“The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the statistics that would be produced – not “reduced” – on this. The Home Office chief statistician recently replied to a letter from the UK Statistics Authority on the subject.” – Lord Parkinson of Whiteley Bay

OSR Intervention: No Recourse to Public Funds

Date of mention: 8 October 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During a debate on No Recourse to Public Funds on 8 October 2020, our intervention was mentioned during two exchanges.

1.“…On 20 May, I asked: “how many people were given leave to remain in the UK subject to the no recourse to public funds condition in 2019.” I asked for a number. On 2 June, the Minister’s colleague replied: “The information you have requested is not assured to the standard required by ONS for publication and as it would be too costly to do so, we are unable to provide it.” In other words, “We’re not interested in answering your question.” I complained about that answer to the UK Statistics Authority, and it upheld my complaint. The correspondence is on its website. The Home Office head of statistics responded on 3 July…” – Stephen Timms MP
…

2.“The letter from the Home Office chief statistician dated 3 July, which is on the UK Statistics Authority website, states: “Home Office administrative data only captures information on whether visas are subject to NRPF conditions for in-country extensions.” I have asked how many there are, but received no answer.” – Stephen Timms MP

OSR Intervention: COVID-19 data transparency

Date of mention: 9 November 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

On 9 November, a Lords debate took place on the transparency and accuracy of COVID-19 statistics prompted by our statement published on 5 November.

1.“To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by the Office for Statistics Regulation on the transparency of data related to COVID-19, published on 5 November, and reports that charts on projected daily deaths from COVID-19 have been reissued, what assessment they have made of such reports; and what steps they are taking to review (1) the transparency and accuracy of statistics relating to COVID-19, and (2) the decisions that are based on such statistics.” – Lord Lilley

“My Lords, the Office for Statistics Regulation is 100% right: the best use of data and statistics is critical in this unprecedented time. All slides and data from press conferences are published on GOV.UK, normally at the time of the press conference. The Government are committed to transparency to build public trust throughout the pandemic; that is why we publish data, the modelling used and any revisions as part of this process.” – Lord Bethell

“I thank my noble friend. Does he realise that this rebuke from the statistics regulator is unprecedented, as is the unparalleled series of errors, dubious charts, outdated data and failed projections? …” – Lord Lilley

“My Lords, we are grateful to the Office for Statistics Regulation for its challenge; its points were perfectly reasonable and we take them on board completely…” – Lord Bethell

…

2. My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is an extremely serious matter when the statistics authority criticises government advisers’ use of statistics? If the public are to accept lockdown and all the restrictions involved, they need to have confidence in the statistics and that they are not speculative. Would the Minister agree that the graph with four scenarios for daily deaths from Covid, rising to 4,000 a day – a rate that exceeds that of Brazil, which has three times our population – should never have been shown at the Prime Minister’s press conference? If he does not agree with that, why was it subsequently modified? –Lord Lamont of Lerwick

“My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right: statistics are critical and very important to public trust. No one takes them more seriously than this Government. However, I remind him that it was not the statistics that the Office for Statistics Regulation expressed concern about; it was about material being used in press conferences that has not been published at the press conferences as they happened. That was a function of the speed at which that press conference was turned around, but he is entirely right that that chart had a presentational error in it, which was corrected. It was published as a result of the publication of the data behind it. I reassure him that the data upon which decisions were made and the data that went into the central case of that chart was correct, and the fact that we have changed it demonstrates that we are committed to transparency in all these matters.” – Lord Bethell

OSR Intervention: No Recourse to Public Funds

Date of mention: 26 November 2020

Where mentioned: House of Commons

Details:

During a debate on DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak on 26 November 2020, Claudia Webbe MP referred to our intervention on no recourse to public funds.

“…It is appalling that the Home Office does not even record the number of UK residents with no recourse to public funds, despite a recent intervention from the Office for Statistics Regulation, which expressed alarm at the Home Office’s repeated refusal to do so. It is contrary to reason to develop policy without knowing how many people the condition affects. The Government must adopt this most basic of tasks.” – Claudia Webbe MP

OSR Intervention: COVID-19 data transparency

Date of mention: 1 December 2020

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lords debate on coronavirus regulations on 1 December 2020, Baroness Noakes referred to our intervention on COVID-19 data transparency.

“The Government continue to take Parliament and the country for fools. Before the last lockdown, they used some graphs to scare us into submission. The basis of those graphs disintegrated once the underlying models and assumptions were forced into the public domain. It was so bad that the Office for Statistics Regulation issued a strongly worded rebuke. This time we have again been told that, unless the new tiered version of lockdown hell is voted through, NHS hospitals will be overwhelmed. This is clearly not a fact, as our hospitals are not currently overwhelmed. They are operating much as usual for this time of year, and the Nightingale capacity remains unused.” – Baroness Noakes

OSR Intervention: Road haulage

Date of mention: 18 March 2021

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lords debate on Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Temporary Exceptions) Regulations 2021 on 18 March 2021, our intervention on the transparency of road haulage statistics was mentioned.

“…The Government published a press story on, I think, 7 February disputing the figures published by the Road Haulage Association. The Road Haulage Association looks after its members’ interests, and it suggested that the loads to the EU – I quote from its press release – had “reduced by as much as 68 percent” since January this year. It wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explaining this, and the Government are basically saying it is not true. Somebody must be able to count; it is surely pathetic. I tend to believe the RHA because it has an interest in looking after its members’ interests – they do not want to see delays – whereas the Government are trying to say that everything is all right. This has gone on, with an argument in a letter between the Office for Statistics Regulation and Richard Laux, the chief statistician of the Cabinet Office, talking about whether the data is published or not. The Cabinet Office then published a note to accompany the original press story. In other words, this is damage limitation. The key, to me, is a quote from the Port of Dover on 8 February that said: “Traffic continues to flow smoothly through the Port of Dover post-Brexit transition.” Does that not tell us that there is no problem that needs to be cured?” – Lord Berkeley

OSR Intervention: Sex and gender in criminal justice statistics

Date of mention: 17 March 2021

Where mentioned: House of Lords

Details:

During a Lords debate on the Domestic Abuse Bill on 17 March 2021, Baroness Fox of Buckley referred to our statement on sex and gender statistics.

“Gender is not defined in UK law and is a cultural identity—malleable, subjective and one of choice. Sex is, however, a material objective reality. The Office for Statistics Regulation recently emphasised the need for clarity about definitions and stressed that sex and gender should not be used interchangeably in official statistics, and gave the example of criminal justice statistics.” – Baroness Fox of Buckley