Editorial

Labour leader Alfred Sant was wrong to accuse the "authorities" of tampering with official statistics when the National Office of Statistics announced a revision of certain figures. His party could have first asked for an explanation of the new and updated system used in the collection of statistics before casting doubts on the reliability of the figures. As he and his party have done on so many other occasions in the past, they have been far too quick in making allegations.

Questioning the correctness of figures is one thing, accusing the authorities of tampering with them is quite another. Rightly or wrongly, the Labour leader has given the impression that there has been political direction or manipulation in the working out of the figures. In Parliament, for example, he has gone on record saying that the method changes made were being used as a screen, with the statistics being used as a political tool. The government, he said, wanted to make the people feel what might or might not exist.

Statistics are used for political purposes (drawing up of policies, propaganda etc.) by political parties the world over; one reason why those responsible for their compilation should be above board and enjoy widespread respect for competence and independence in their post.

When the Labour leader accused the authorities of tampering with statistics, Tonio Fenech, Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Finance, immediately retorted that the government could not intervene in any way in the work of the NSO. One comment he made that is very pertinent to the issue is that the statistics are verified by Eurostat, the EU's statistical agency.

As promised, the Labour Party has now published what it has called a technical report on the recent revisions of GDP statistics and the NSO's explanation. In its conclusion, the unnamed compilers of the report say that while it is internationally standard practice to revise statistics for the past three years, revision of data every quarter for beyond the three-year horizon was disturbing for economic analysts.

The MLP has now sent a copy of the report to Eurostat, a move that has, unsurprisingly, further convinced the parliamentary secretary that the MLP wants to harm the credibility of the NSO and derail the plans for the adoption of the euro in January next year. Labour is denying this, but its denial would have carried greater weight if the party had waited for the explanation which the NSO plans to give to the questions the party has raised in the "technical report".

The NSO's replies to the questions raised by the MLP have been requested by the Malta Statistics Authority's chairman, Reno Camilleri. Among the issues he expects to be covered by the NSO is the way in which the utilisation of different and independent statistical sources contributes to revisions in the data. It would also be most interesting to find out, in time, Eurostat's reaction to the MLP's report.

In the controversy that has been raging, there is one point though over which the MLP has reason to complain - the way the method changes were announced. Dr Sant was right in pointing out in Parliament that, in a statistical transition period, figures ought to be presented both under the old and the new methods.

Changes in methodology ought first to be announced at the appropriate time by the office formally and, if necessary, further information be then given at press conferences afterwards. This would help to dispel doubts. Had Labour stuck to this argument and raised questions, rather than making wild allegations, it would have scored points.