Review of pre-release access in Scotland

Drivers for current PRA arrangements

In this section, we reflect on the available literature regarding the drivers for the current PRA arrangement across the UK as well as on the scoping conversations which were conducted with relevant representatives from key stakeholder organisations including the Scottish Government’s Office of the Chief Statistician (OCS), the UKSA, the ONS and their equivalents in the Welsh Government. We then consider evidence emerging from the stakeholder interviews and focus groups on to the extent to which stakeholders who took part in interviews are aware of these drivers.

Drivers for current PRA arrangement

An independent review of the arrangements governing access to official statistics published in 2010 highlighted a need to reduce or, where possible, remove pre-release access to Ministers and other officials across all four devolved UK nations14. This was the first formal advice the UKSA gave on PRA following the Orders introduced in 2008 and 2009. The report called for PRA to be reduced to a maximum of 3 hours and proposed that there should typically be one hour between the release of statistics and any comment on these from Ministers to allow the public access to the independent report without competition from any political commentary, which should reduce the need for PRA. The recommended maximum of 3 hours is not currently in place anywhere in the UK. It also concluded that there are some exceptional circumstances where the public interest may be perceived to be best served by allowing longer access than normal to a small number of individuals. The UKSA published a summary of the recommendations online the day after the review^[15] including their proposal that “…despite the statutory provisions which prevent it from determining the rules on pre-release access, Ministers in all four UK administrations should look to the Authority to guide future practice. Equality of access levels the political playing field, demonstrates statistical independence, and is a reasonable arrangement which respects the interests of Parliament, the press and the public.”

The UKSA (2010) recommended that, in the longer term, the legislation should be changed to allow them to take the lead role in making such decisions given their independence from any political influence.^[16] In the same review, the UKSA has also questioned the provision set out in the Scottish and Welsh Orders for the maximum period of pre-release access to be varied to an unlimited extent. In a letter to the Welsh Assembly Government, Sir Michael Scholar (the then Chair of the UKSA) commented that statistics should be published at the earliest opportunity once they are ready rather than held back.

The UKSA told the Northern Ireland Executive,¹⁶ it believed that: “Enabling the administration of the day to discuss, and prepare statements about, the statistics whilst not allowing the same access to Parliament or the public is not, in our view, either the best approach, in terms of principle, or at a practical level, likely to help build confidence in the independence and impartiality of the statistical service. The Statistics Authority would like to see all four UK administrations using the new Orders not just to establish a new standard for pre-release access but to achieve progressive reduction both in the length of time for which privileged access is granted, and in the number of officials and Ministers seeing statistics prior to publication.”

ONS conducted a review in early 2017 aiming to mitigate concerns they had raised with the UKSA in December 2016, highlighting a trend for increasing instances of access and the potential impact of this on public trust in the statistics.^[17] This review, along with the UKSA 2010 review, likely contributed to the decision by ONS to remove any pre-release access to officials of the statistics that they produce, unless in exceptional circumstances. Following the review but ahead of the wholesale change, some other adjustments had been made to PRA for ONS statistics including increased control of the number of government officials accessing the statistics and the length of pre-release access. However, ONS concluded that the changes were not successfully dealing with the risks that had been highlighted and on the UKSA’s recommendation decided to end pre-release access to statistics in July 2017, other than in exceptional circumstances which would be published online.

Scoping conversations highlighted the central influence of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) and its long-term campaign to end the practice of pre-release access The RSS’s position is that PRA threatens to undermine public confidence in statistics when ministers are potentially able to prepare their own spin on the numbers ready for when they are released to the press and public. In 2017, the RSS coordinated a letter to The Times, signed by 114 academics and experts, which called for pre-release to be ended.^[18]

That PRA is to the detriment of public trust is frequently cited as a driver for its removal. There is some limited evidence from the British Social Attitudes Surveys in 2014^[19], 2016^[20] and 2018^[21] regarding public attitudes to pre-release access. Respondents were given the following information: Under the current rules, Government ministers are shown official statistics the day before [in England] / five days before [in Scotland / Wales] they are released to the public and asked to select the response closest to their view:

• The current rules are right; Government ministers alone should be shown official statistics before they are released to the public
• The current rules should be changed; Official statistics should be made equally available to everybody, including the public, at the same time

Over the three time points, around 7 people in 10 felt that official statistics should be made equally available to everybody, including the public, at the same time. This question was not reported in subsequent PCOS waves.

An independent review of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) was conducted by Professor Denise Lievesley in 2024.^[22] The review highlights a need for the UKSA to review the current system of pre-release access to official statistics across the devolved administrations to bring them in line with the approach taken by the Office of National Statistics (ONS):

“Since 2017 the ONS no longer provides Pre-Release Access to its statistics except for very exceptional circumstances (for example, during the Covid-19 pandemic). This is increasingly recognised as an international standard of the integrity of official statistics. However, for statistics produced by other government departments and the Devolved Administrations, Pre-Release Access remains common practice and varies in implementation: for example, in Scotland access is provided to Scottish Ministers up to 5 days before publication.”

The Lievesley review highlighted that the “The inconsistent application of Pre-Release Access to official statistics across the UK Statistical system has the potential to undermine trust.” The recommendation was that “The Cabinet Office and devolved legislatures should amend the relevant secondary legislation for each nation at the earliest opportunity to follow the approach to Pre-Release Access taken by the ONS in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics.”

The recommendations from the Lievesley report along with the removal of pre-release access to statistics published by ONS (unless in exceptional circumstances), likely informed the changes brought about by the Scottish Government in 2021 to remove pre-release access to GDP and Scottish retail statistics. This likely also contributed to changes brought about by the ONS and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) in 2017 and by the Welsh Government from 2018 to share details on their website of the titles of statistical reports to which pre-release access arrangements apply, job titles of all those persons to whom pre-release access is granted and the organisations to which they belong.

The RSS welcomed the findings and recommendations of the updates to the Lievesely review and, in a statement, urged governments across the UK to follow the example set by the ONS and remove PRA to all official statistics.^[23] The RSS expressed disappointment in the Cabinet Office’s stated view regarding PRA that the statistical needs of the government (particularly economic) “take precedence” over wider user needs, and saw this as going against the spirit of the 2007 Statistics Act. In June 2024, The RSS wrote to all leaders of the main UK political parties, calling for ministers to receive training in interpreting data, as well as an end to pre-release access.^[24]

Understanding of drivers for changes

The Office of the Chief Statistician confirmed that the Independent Review of the UK Statistics Authority by Professor Denise Lievesley²² and the Scottish Government’s response to it had been shared with statisticians working in the Scottish Government. Despite this, awareness of the drivers for changes to PRA in the UK and their application to Scotland was low among the stakeholders and only those at the most senior levels were familiar with the Lievesley review or any external pressure to review PRA in Scotland. Stakeholders frequently questioned the reasons behind the review of PRA in Scotland and any proposed changes and stated that they were not aware of any practical or operational issues that would be solved by changes to PRA.

I'm not sure what a proposal such as a reduction in the access, what the problem is that such a reduction is seeking to fix. I've not really ever heard [it] articulated. (Scottish Government statistics producer)

There was a perception among some participants that reductions to the length of PRA in the UK government or removal of PRA by the ONS was driven by a lack of trust in the UK government and concerns about leaking, and the PRA had been introduced to prevent statistics being leaked prior to publication. Participants felt that the culture within the Scottish Government was different to that within the UK Government, and that leaking was not an issue in Scotland. It was suggested that the 5 working day PRA period in Scotland was indicative of trust in the officials who receive PRA not to leak the statistics.

It's an interesting one knowing that [external statistics provider] have made a decision not to do PRA on the basis of not trusting government departments. So in some ways the PRA being in existence here is a reflection of trust rather than anything else. It's a reflection that policy officials, comms officials will treat the data with the respect it deserves prior to publication. So I don't know, I just see it's [PRA] a good thing. (Policy professional)