Conclusions and recommendations
Social science in Government
1. We are content
that the structure of social science research in Government is
organised in an effective manner to provide the information required
by Ministers in planning departmental spending. We are, however,
not convinced about the ability of social scientist advisors to
influence Ministers when departmental considerations conflict
with those of Government as a whole. (Paragraph 17)
2. We recommend that
the Government give a senior Minister direct responsibility for
social science who would take a cross-Government view in Ministerial
discussions, respond to Parliamentary questions and reports from
Select Committees. We consider this essential, especially in the
event that greater departmental co-operation is required to source
data in the event of the census being discontinued. (Paragraph 18)
3. The ESRC's second
[National Strategy] document covers the period 2009-2012, and
a major part of it concerns making better use of the data that
is already collected. It was surprising that we did not hear
more about this strategy in our oral or written evidence as it
would seem central to the long term provision of data for social
science, especially if the census is to be discontinued. (Paragraph
21)
4. Utilities presumably
consider their investment decisions against projections made on
the basis of local authority structural plans. However, as we
note below, local authorities depend, at least in part, on the
national census to test the validity of their own projections.
We recommend that the Government investigate the potential for
sharing anonymised social data collected by utilities. (Paragraph
28)
Importance of census data
5. We appreciate the
central role that census data has played for social scientists.
The main reasons for its importance for academia are datasets
that can be used across many years, continuing longitudinal studies
and a central reference point with which other data may be compared.
However, Professor Mayhew's concern that social scientists may
turn to the census data simply because it is there rather than
because it provides the best data source for the research in hand
was not convincing. However, we do recommend that the ESRC ensures
that, among those researchers it funds, there is no over-reliance
on census data to the exclusion of more appropriate data sources,
or such use that stifles the development of innovative means of
gathering or utilising social data. (Paragraph 43)
6. We strongly consider
that there is a need for more up to date information than the
census provides. We urge the Office for National Statistics during
their 'Beyond 2011' deliberations to ensure that whatever solution
they propose provides greater access to current accurate data.
(Paragraph 47)
7. We have some concerns
that the operation of the census may unduly impact on the day
to day operations of the ONS. We recommend that when considering
how to provide constant, accurate data to Government, the ONS
devise how this might be accomplished in a way that will be less
intrusive to the operation of their day to day organisation. (Paragraph
50)
Potential use of other administrative data
8. Administrative
data is often collected without consideration of potential wider
application and use, thus often is only fit for a single purpose.
There is reluctance on the part of research scientists and government
social scientists to utilise it for other purposes due to the
difficulties in its reuse. The existing National Data Strategy
should provide good practice and guidance on expanding the number
of uses and the longevity of data collected at public expense.
(Paragraph 59)
9. We also recommend
that the ONS seek to remove bureaucratic burdens currently hindering
the broader use of data. Too often the Data Protection Act is
used as an excuse for not reusing data collected at considerable
cost to the public purse. We consider it entirely possible that
data could be collected in a way to facilitate better public administration
that would not contravene the principles of the Data Protection
Act. We would like the Government to indicate how it plans to
more broadly use data from sources, such as the Labour Force Survey,
as part of their response to this report. (Paragraph 60)
10. We consider Professor
Mayhew's evidence as confirmation that there is a credible alternative
to the census for the purposes of local government. However, we
note that local government are not the only users of census data,
and—because of their ad hoc nature—Professor Mayhew's
surveys would not substitute for the census in terms of being
able to derive a snapshot of the whole nation at one time, with
very widespread coverage (because of the mandatory nature of the
census process) and the ability to make direct comparisons over
time. The academic community would clearly lose more than the
public sector by the ending of the census. (Paragraph 63)
11. Furthermore, we
are concerned that there would need to be a level of expertise
not currently widely available amongst organisations collecting
data in order to achieve results comparable with those obtained
from census data. We recommend that the Government use the time
until the next census is due to ensure administrative data is
better able to supplement or replace census data. This will require
a considerable investment, and possibly the production of a list
of approved providers for local authorities, health bodies, etc,
to ensure that the data produced is both robust and comparable
across authority boundaries and devolved administrations across
the whole of the UK. (Paragraph 64)
12. Francis Maude,
the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, wrote
to us that "while cost is a driver, the real issue is ensuring
that the best possible approach is taken". We are not persuaded
that local and frequent surveys could provide an adequate substitute
for census data despite the potential advantage of providing more
up-to-date information unless they were designed and implemented
to a high standard. We are therefore not convinced therefore that
the use of administrative data would be a cheaper option over
a ten year census cycle. (Paragraph 65)
Consideration of change or discontinuation of
the census
13. However, if standards
could be set to facilitate integration with administrative sources,
we consider it possible that obligations could be imposed on privatised
utilities to produce and provide government with access to useful
social data. (Paragraph 66)
14. We recommend that
the ONS, if they decide to discontinue the census, should consider
how administrative data might be collected over a sustained period
without falling hostage to political considerations. (Paragraph
68)
15. In this context,
there is a particular problem in relation to ensuring the robustness
of longitudinal studies by providing a benchmark against which
the representative nature of the surviving cohort may be measured.
Soundly-based longitudinal studies are a particular strength of
the UK at present, and are vital in particular in relation to
research into health and educational outcomes. We expect the ONS
to pay particular attention to ensuring that any alternatives
to the census enable the continuance of such studies. (Paragraph
69)
16. However, the National
Data Strategy exists and we judge that this strategy would provide
a vehicle through which greater coherence of data collection,
both administrative and research, could be achieved in future.
(Paragraph 72)
17. There is a danger
that, if the census is not repeated, there will be no equivalent
large-scale collection of trusted data that can be used to correct
smaller surveys. We are convinced of the need to have a national
reference point that other datasets might use as a benchmark for
their own parameters. We recommend that the ONS consider how this
might be achieved in the absence of a census; it appears to us
that making an existing dataset better would be more advantageous
than adding a new one. (Paragraph 77)
18. The Government
spends significant sums on R&D, though it is not clear what
percentage of this relates to social science. However, we accept
the assurance of the joint heads of the Government Social Research
Service that spending is, in the main, being protected even in
this difficult economic climate. That same climate makes it even
more vital that the Government ensures such expenditure, firmly
based on evidence, achieves the maximum benefit possible. (Paragraph
79)
19. We are not convinced
of the value of government collecting data simply because it has
happened in the past and we consider that the responsibility to
maintain particular datasets should rest with those bodies most
interested in the dataset. However, we recognise the difficulties
that local charities and support groups may have in accessing
information if the census is discontinued. We regard it as essential
that the Government recognise these needs and confirm that appropriate
steps would be taken to ensure these groups to have continued
free access to whatever alternative data is gathered and shared
by public bodies in order to avoid detriment to the valuable local
services provided by them. We anticipate a central data repository
from which all publicly funded social data, not subject to legal
or commercial restrictions, would be made available. (Paragraph
80)
20. Therefore, although
we do not rule out the development of new sources of data in the
future, we consider it would be wrong to discontinue the census
simply hoping that new developments will provide a solution to
the gaps caused by the loss of census data. ONS must be sure that
the tools used to collect data will be adequate. One key concern
is that we have not identified any dataset that will really enable
social scientists/historians to follow individuals over time.
Most public sector data-gathering is focused on the size of specified
groups, rather than details of individuals, and private sector
databases (such as those for loyalty cards) cover only parts of
the population and are of little relevance for many of the economically
excluded and the poorer sections of society. (Paragraph 82)
21. We are convinced
that the social science benefits of the census are valuable and
that they outweigh the financial costs. However, we are also convinced
that there remain significant benefits to be gained in terms of
improving the consistency, currency and availability of administrative
data to government planners. Although we put forward these conclusions
to assist in the ONS's 'Beyond 2011' project, we consider it essential
that the Government not only retain access to the breadth and
quality of data it collects but seeks to improve its currency
and consistency. (Paragraph 83)
22. The regular conduct
of a census in the UK has provided Government and social scientists
with an almost unique dataset with which to examine the changing
nature of UK society over the past 200 years. We consider that
good evidence-based social policy is founded on such data and
that the Government needs to ensure future access to high quality
social data. (Paragraph 84)
| 
