UK Statistical System Code of Practice Office for Statistics Regulation
UK Statistics AuthorityParliamentary Committee SubmissionsHouse of Commons

Office for National Statistics written evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s inquiry into post-pandemic growth: UK labour market

Dear Mr Jones,

I write in response to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s call for evidence for its inquiry, ‘post-pandemic economic growth: UK labour markets’.

As the Committee will be aware, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s National Statistical Institute and largest producer of official statistics. This inquiry is of particular interest and relevance to us as we are responsible for producing employment and labour market statistics and analysis for the UK.

We have focussed our written evidence submission on our most recent statistical analysis of skills in the current labour market, which are most and least prevalent, and how this has changed because of the coronavirus pandemic. We have also provided analysis of changes in employment contracts and working patterns, and of the impact of an ageing population of the labour market and sectoral productivity.

I hope this is useful, and I look forward to discussing this with the Committee in person on 19 July.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Keoghan

Deputy National Statistician for Economic, Social and Environmental Statistics

Office for National Statistics written evidence ‘post-pandemic economic growth: UK labour markets’, July 2022

Executive Summary

  1. Changes in the labour market due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic have had significant effects on different industry sectors.
  2. Overall, lower-skilled, and lower-paid occupations saw falls in employment from September 2016 to September 2021. Comparatively, higher-paid, and higher-skilled occupations saw an increase in employment during this same time period. Additionally, the number of people whose highest qualification was an undergraduate degree or equivalent grew by 7.5% to 9.4 million over the same period.
  3. In June 2022, 15% of businesses reported they were experiencing a shortage of workers, and for businesses with 250 or more employees, the percentage that reported worker shortages was 43%.
  4. The number of full-time employees continued an upward trend during the pandemic and is at a record high in the latest period. The number of part-time employees has also increased over the last year. This follows significant falls early on during pandemic. Self-employment also remains low following large falls during the early stages of the pandemic.
  5. 2022 saw the proportion of workers working in a hybrid model rising; 84% of workers who had to work from home planned to carry out a combination of home working and working from their place of employment. Almost a quarter of businesses reported using or intending to include homeworking as a permanent business model, although this differs by industry.
  6. Economic inactivity has increased by 522,000 persons in October to December 2021 compared with the period October to December 2019. Most of the increase was because of those aged 50 years and over, contributing 94.4% (493,000) to the overall change. The rise in inactivity rates among older workers appears to be more prevalent in Professional Occupations.

The state of play in the UK labour market post EU Exit and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on recruitment, skills shortages, and the growth of the labour market

Do we have enough workers with the right skills in the right places?

  1. Through our overview of human capital estimates in the UK, we can see there has been a steady rise in people with higher qualifications. In 2020, the number of working age people with a master’s or PhD qualification grew by 10.9% to 5.1 million when compared with 2019. Similarly, the number of people whose highest qualification was an undergraduate degree or equivalent grew by 7.5% to 9.4 million over the same period. We aim to publish regional estimates of these by the end of July 2022.
  2. Looking at those in employment, from our NOMIS database, there is large variation in workers with different skills. At one extreme of the skill levels distribution, Harrow, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Torridge had the highest proportion of people in employment with the lowest skill level in 2021, at around one in five in jobs like cleaners and catering assistants. At the other end of the skills distribution for the same period, about one in two people in employment in Camden, East Renfrewshire and Elmbridge were in the highest skill-level occupations such as science and technology professionals. The ONS will be publishing more of this information at varying geographic levels, as well as how it has changed over time since 2004, by mid-July 2022, and will send to the Committee when released.
  3. To identify whether workers have the right skills, we look at labour demand indicators. In our recent release, Labour Demand Indicators by Local Authority, we identified changing demands that varied by region and urban/rural classification. For example, the North East saw the biggest increase in online job adverts, particularly for the local authorities of Newcastle upon Tyne and County Durham.
  4. We will be investigating the differences in labour demand by occupation in an upcoming release in summer 2022, to understand what type of skills are being sought. This is part of wider work the ONS is developing to identify skills demand specifically and compare it with modelled estimates of existing skills of the workforce (deriving ‘skills stocks’) as well as the skills of the ‘potential’ workforce who are looking for a new job, to see if there are specific skills shortages in specific areas, or if demand can be met with existing potential workers. This work should be delivered iteratively up to March 2023.

Which sectors are experiencing the most acute shortages of workers since the pandemic?

  1. Estimates from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey (BICS) show that in early June 2022, 15% of businesses reported that they were experiencing a shortage of workers, up from a low of 13% reported in early May 2022. However, for businesses with 250 or more employees, the percentage that reported worker shortages in early June 2022 was 43%.
  2. In early June, the accommodation and food service activities industry continued to report the largest percentage of businesses experiencing worker shortages, at 35%, followed by the construction industry at 25%.
  3. In the Accommodation and food service industry, 65% of businesses reporting worker shortages said that ‘employees working increased hours’ in early June, while 30% ‘had to recruit temporary workers’ or were ‘unable to meet demands’. In construction, 54% of businesses reporting shortages of workers reported that they were ‘unable to meet demands’ in early June, while 23% reported ‘employees working increased hours’.
  4. Since March 2022, approximately 1 in 10 businesses report to have experienced difficulties in recruiting employees, rising to more than 4 in 10 among larger firms (with 50 or more employees). Accommodation and food service activities (24%), Human health and social work activities (23%), and Real estate activities (17%) had the highest percentage of businesses reporting difficulties in recruiting employees in May 2022.
  5. In March 2022, across all businesses not permanently stopped trading and had difficulty recruiting employees, 50% reported they had difficulty recruiting skilled, manual or technical employees, followed by 40% reporting difficulties in recruiting semi-skilled or unskilled employees. Low number of applications for the roles on offer and lack of qualified applicants for the roles on offer were the most common reasons given (approximately, 6 in 10) for experiencing difficulties in recruiting employees.

What impact has the UK’s departure from the EU had on the flow of workers into and out of the UK? Are there particular sectors or skill sets that are most impacted?

  1. The fall in employment seen since 2016 have been largely driven by UK nationals as shown in the Changing Trends and Recent Shortages in the Labour Market publication[2]. In the 12 months to September 2020, the number of EU workers increased by 119,000 workers when compared with the same period in 2016. The year change from October to September 2020 to October to September 2021 saw a fall of 91,000 EU workers, suggesting a possible pandemic effect.
  2. Payrolled employment counts from HMRC showed the same signal of a fall in EU workers, indeed, the magnitude was higher using this measure, though comparing a longer time period. Between June 2019 and June 2021, payrolled employments held by EU nationals fell by 6% (171,100). This was offset by those of non-EU nationals, which increased by 9% (186,300) in the same period. The largest decline in total payrolled employments was seen in accommodation and food services; this was driven by a 25% (98,400) fall in payrolled employments of EU nationals during the two years up to June 2021.
  3. Overall, net international migration has seen a considerable change in the proportion of EU and non-EU since the EU referendum in 2016, where after 4 years of year on year increases, net EU migration began to fall. This was more than offset by non-EU migration which gradually increased to some of the highest levels on record up to the point of the pandemic. Most recent estimates show year to June 2021 EU migration was near zero while non-EU migration was 251,000.

To what extent is long covid contributing to economic inactivity due to long-term levels of sickness absence and early retirement?

  1. The ONS is currently working on an analysis of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection / long COVID and changes in employment status (working or not working) using data from the Coronavirus Infection Survey. However, it is not possible to identify long-term sickness absence from the survey data. We anticipate being able to publish results from this work later this year and will share these with the Committee.
  2. A longer-term project involves linking population-level census and SARS-CoV-2 testing data to the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC administrative records to infer the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent changes in labour market outcomes, such as employment status, income, and benefit claims (for example, state pension, incapacity benefit and jobseekers’ allowance). This project is currently in the planning stages, and we anticipate being able to publish initial findings in early 2023.

Employment status and modern working practices five years on from the Taylor Review

How are working patterns changing in the UK? To what extent is the gig economy growing and permanent full-time employment contracts in decline?

  1. While the ONS does not publish any statistics on permanent full-time employment contracts directly, we do publish estimates of temporary employees and full-time/part-time employees in dataset EMP01, with further information about temporary employees in dataset EMP07. The following paragraphs are based on the estimates published in those two datasets.
  2. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of temporary employees had been largely decreasing since late 2014. The number then began to increase in late 2019. Initially as the pandemic took hold the number decreased, before rapidly increasing from the second half 2020. By October to December 2021, the number of temporary employees was at its highest level since late 2014. The number has been relatively flat since, remaining at historically high levels but below the record highs seen in 1997.
  3. The increase in temporary employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, from July to September 2020, was largely driven by women. Initially, the increase was driven by employees who were in temporary work because they could not find a permanent job. However, the number of people in this group has been largely decreasing since April to June 2021. It has been those in temporary work because they did not want a permanent job who have largely driven the increase since early 2021. This indicates that, during the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of people in temporary work were in their desired form of employment.
  4. In the Labour Force Survey (LFS), temporary employees include those on fixed period contracts, agency temps and those in casual or seasonal work. Those on fixed period contracts comprise the largest proportion of temporary employees – 44% in January to March 2022 – and it was this group that largely drove the increase during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  5. Looking at both permanent and temporary employees, the number of full-time employees continued its upward trend during the pandemic and is at a record high in the latest period. The number of part-time employees has also increased over the last year following large falls early in the COVID-19 pandemic, although numbers remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Self-employment also remains low following large falls during the early stages of the pandemic. These were largely driven by people flowing from self-employed to employee status, and by people reclassifying their self-reported labour market status in this way while remaining in the same job.
  6. While the proportion of temporary employees increased from mid-2020 and has levelled off at around 6% in recent periods, this is below the proportions reached during the 1990s and in the years following the 2008/09 financial crisis. Therefore, despite increases in those in temporary employment during the pandemic, the number of employees in permanent employment remain high.

How have employee demands and employer offers of flexible working been affected by the pandemic?

  1. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of people working from home had been steadily increasing. The Annual Population Survey found that between 2011 and 2019, the proportion of people who did any work at home increased from 23.9% to 26.6%. This trend accelerated during the pandemic with 35.9% of people reporting doing at least some work at home in 2020.
  2. More recent data from the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey show that during 2022, the proportion of workers both working at home and at their usual place of work (“hybrid working”) has been rising. When asked about future intentions in February 2022, 84% of workers who had to work from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic said they planned to carry out a mix of working at home and in their place of work in the future.
  3. Of those who reported working from home, more than three-quarters (78%) said that being able to work from home gave them an improved work life balance in February 2022. Half reported it was quicker to complete work (52%) and that they had fewer distractions (53%). Almost half also reported improved well-being (47%).
  4. In the Business Insights and Conditions Survey, almost a quarter of businesses (23%) reported using or intending to include homeworking as a permanent business model in April 2022, an increase from 16% when businesses were asked in autumn 2020.
  5. This differs by industry: more than half (54%) of businesses in the information and communication industry reporting they were using, or intended to use, increased homeworking as part of a permanent business model in early April 2022. This was only the case for 3% of businesses in the accommodation and food services industry, and 5% of businesses in the construction industry, which are less adaptable to homeworking.
  6. Among business who reported using or intending to use homeworking as part of a permanent business model, the most common reason for doing so was improved staff well-being (60%), followed by reduced overheads (43%) and increased productivity (41%).

The impact of an ageing population on the labour market

What impact is the ageing population already having on employment rates and labour productivity?

  1. Overall economic inactivity has increased by 522,000 persons in October to December 2021 compared with before the pandemic (October to December 2019). Most of the increase was because of those aged 50 years and over, contributing 94.4% (493,000) to the overall change.

Figure 1: Volume change of economically inactive people since October to December 2019, by age bands, UK, October to December 2019 to October to December 2021, seasonally adjusted

Volume change of economically inactive people since October to December 2019, by age bands, UK, October to December 2019 to October to December 2021, seasonally adjusted

Source: Office for National Statistics – Labour Force Survey For a more accessible version, please visit our accessibility policy.

Source: Office for National Statistics – Labour Force Survey

  1. As reported in our overview of human capital estimates in the UK release, the ageing population has decreased human capital stock grown since 2004. Since 2016, ageing has had a larger negative effect on human capital stocks growth, with stocks growing by 0.5 percentage points less each year on average due to the ageing population.

Figure 2: Contribution to change in real full human capital stock (%)

Contribution to change in real full human capital stock (%)

Office for National Statistics – Annual Population Survey, Longitudinal Labour Force Survey and ONS National Life Tables For a more accessible version, please visit our accessibility policy.

Source: Office for National Statistics – Annual Population Survey, Longitudinal Labour Force Survey and ONS National Life Tables

How is the UK’s ageing population exacerbating the labour shortage that can already be felt in some sectors, e.g., hospitality, hair and beauty, social care?

  1. The rise in inactivity rates among older workers appears to be more prevalent in Professional Occupations given that older workers are typically clustered within these higher skilled occupations. The changing trends and recent shortages in the labour market publication reports that in the 12 months to April to June 2021, 9% of workers who left their job in the last 12 months flowed into inactivity, the highest flow being Professional Occupations at 5.5%.
  2. Similarly, the movements out of work for those ages over 50 years publication found that the occupation with the largest number of 50- to 70-year-olds, professional occupations, saw the largest volume change moving to economic inactivity, an increase of around 30,000, when comparing the movements from Quarter 2 to Quarter 3 2021, with the same period in 2019.
  3. The second-largest occupation for workers aged 50 to 70 years, associate professional occupations, saw movements to economic inactivity increase by around 22,000, when comparing Quarter 2 to Quarter 3 2021 with the same quarters in 2019. The proportion moving to economic inactivity increased from 3.2% to 4.5%.
  4. Caring, leisure and other service occupations saw the largest increase in the proportion of the group moving to economic inactivity. The proportion becoming economically inactive increased from 3.0% to 6.0%, or around 21,000 workers in volume terms.

Figure 3: Total change of workers aged 50 to 70 years flowing into economic inactivity by occupation, between April to June and July to September, UK, 2021 compared with 2019

Total change of workers aged 50 to 70 years flowing into economic inactivity by occupation, between April to June and July to September, UK, 2021 compared with 2019

Source: Office for National Statistics – Longitudinal Labour Force Survey For a more accessible version, please visit our accessibility policy.

 

 

Office for National Statistics follow-up written evidence to the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on the right to privacy: digital data

Dear Greg,

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the Science and Technology Committee on 8 June for your inquiry the right to privacy: digital data. I hope you and the Committee accept my sincere apologies for the technical difficulties on the day that meant I was unable to contribute to the session as much as I would have liked. Please see enclosed our answers to the outstanding questions which I hope will assist the Committee with its report.

What progress is being made in addressing weaknesses across the UK’s data ecosystem? Which areas and actions would you prioritise to accelerate further progress?

As we discussed in our written evidence for this inquiry, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is leading in the delivery of an Integrated Data Service (IDS) in collaboration with partners across government as part of the National Data Strategy (4.2.1.). The IDS will enable faster and lower cost analysis for government through streamlined data access processes and departmental collaboration which will transform ways of working. It releases the power of data to enable government reform based on improved policy decisions. Under robust security and ethical protocols, that again we elaborated on in our written evidence, and through a Trusted Research Environment, the IDS will enable analysts to access and analyse linked data and give them the ability to disseminate a range of data.

On areas to prioritise to accelerate further progress, for the ONS to build a service that is fit for purpose, we need partners across government to feed in their requirements on data, as well as their technical and analytical needs.

How deep seated are risk-averse approaches to data sharing? What is driving this and what role can you play in addressing it?

The Committee is right to consider this issue; as we noted in our written evidence, when it comes to data sharing “we could do more still if various barriers to data sharing were eased, particularly a mindset shift from internal department boundaries and towards risk management at government level, including recognising the risk of valuable data not being shared.” We always balance the potential of data sharing for improving policy and outcomes with stringent ethical and legal safeguards to keep the public’s data safe.

There are multiple drivers to a general risk-averse mindset within Government: data governance, data quality, and a focus on risk over reward.

On data governance, while initiatives like the Central Digital and Data Office’s Playbook team have helped resolve differences in opinions on some key data shares and the IDS will bring a more comprehensive approach to cross Government data sharing, friction still remains. Ownership of data is dispersed and fragmented, with different stewardship frameworks adopted across departments.

Secondly, rapid growth of cross-government data sharing has resulted in increase in demand at a time where the administrative systems that generate data are undergoing profound transformation to improve automation and consistency of data. This, coupled with challenges in recruitment of data professionals, can create a gap between the demand for data to be shared and bottlenecks in the preparation of the data.

More broadly, data sharing between the public and private sector is hindered by an unequal risk profile: the organisation that shares the data assumes (or perceives itself to assume) legal risk, while the recipient reaps the benefit. Work is ongoing to understand how legal frameworks can be adapted to mitigate this risk.

The ONS is leading data sharing efforts across government and has over 400 agreements in place to share data for statistical and research purposes. We are the data hub for government and are working to streamline the existing landscape and build the IDS, to provide a mechanism through which to share data, while proactively engaging with privacy groups and the public about the development, to ensure the new service is supported.

What further steps, if any, are needed to ensure public trust on the sharing of their data, especially with private companies? What are the best mechanisms for engaging with the public on data sharing and how can their views be taken into account?

Secure access to data for the private sector, through the Secure Research Service, was introduced by the ONS in 2015 following a full public consultation, and extensive engagement with privacy groups, to ensure that such use was acceptable and demonstrably in the public interest. They must demonstrate the public good of their research, ethical considerations, and adhere to the accreditation conditions of any other project (including transparency).

The importance of public engagement cannot be understated, and maintaining public trust in how the ONS, Government and Accredited Researchers use data is critical to the continued use of these data for analysis. We do this in a number of ways, including:

  • Being transparent around data usage.
  • Proactively seeking public and privacy group engagement on our use of data, and provision of secure access to others through the Integrated Data Service.
  • Building awareness of the ONS with the public.
  • Working closely with other government and research organisations to ensure alignment of public-facing data messaging.
  • Routinely developing and publishing case-studies, to show the positive outcomes and impact of data sharing and use.
  • Being transparent about the safeguards we have in place to ensure we use data securely and ethically.

Key to this is involving the public in decision-making. For example, through my Data Ethics Advisory Committee, which provides independent ethics advice to the ONS, across government and beyond, and is made up of data ethics experts and lay members who provide an independent public voice to the Committee. The work of the Data Ethics Committee, and various partner committees such as the Research Accreditation Panel, is transparently available to the public through published minutes, blogs from members and registers of activity.

The outreach campaign involved in the 2021 Census was an example of engaging with a wide range of community and representative groups, as well as citizens directly, to build understanding of why the numbers matter, how we keep personal information safe, and build confidence in supplying their data. We are now taking this successful approach and applying it to all of our public engagement work.

We take an insight-led approach and are confident in our understanding of the public’s attitudes, barriers and motivations. We will continue to regularly engage with audiences, through quarterly surveys and 6-monthly focus groups, to ensure we keep up to date on any shifts.

This understanding, for example, includes that the public have higher levels of acceptance for the use of data for the ‘public good’ than for commercial gain, and that both COVID-19 and GDPR seem to have had a positive impact on attitudes and behaviours in relation to data sharing. Sharing personal information is thought to be an inevitable part of modern life, with perceptions that people have little choice in sharing their data, but there is a growing need for reassurance that (linked) admin data will be anonymised. There is a very low awareness about both admin data collection, linkage and use, but this leads to broad acceptance once the concept is introduced depending on why and how it is being used. Finally, the high level of awareness and trust in the ONS, as evidenced in the most recent Public Confidence in Official Statistics report where 89% of respondents able to express a view trusted the ONS and 75% of respondents were aware of the ONS, means we are well positioned as trusted data guardians.

Furthermore, close relationships and collaboration with business, charities, public sector and many other organisations are useful for taking a wider range of views into account, and we recently established the National Statistician’s Expert User Advisory Committee (NSEUAC) to bring us even closer to our users and further build their diverse needs into our approach.

Professor Goldacre told us of the risk of using pseudonymised health data and advocated its eradication. How much of a problem is pseudonymisation across the rest of the UK’s data ecosystem and how can any risks be dealt with?

There are trade-offs when it comes to pseudonymisation. The ONS is a world leader in trying to mitigate both risks: the risk to privacy that Professor Goldacre highlights, and the risk of lower quality research. We have done so by investing in the Five Safes Framework. The wider controls within a TRE and the Five Safes Framework combine to reduce the risk of reidentification and enable the safe use of detailed microdata.

Should Trusted Research Environments be networked and if so, how can this be done safely and effectively?

While in principle Trusted Research Environments (TREs) can be networked, we would not recommend this as this would increase security risk without improving access to, or use of, data.

However, TREs must work closely together to ensure that, where there is a need to combine data held in different environments (for example to create a UK-wide Integrated Data Asset, from data held separately in the four nations, or combine Health and Administrative records), data can be securely transferred, linked, and made available for analysis.  This requires that the organisations responsible for the TREs develop the technical mechanisms, and related Information Governance, to enable such collaboration and to so safely, securely, and ethically, in line with established technical, security and capability standards for processing of data for research purposes.

The value of such an approach is recognised by all major TREs in the UK, with good examples of success during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we continue to work closely together. For the ONS, this is an essential component of the IDS.

How should science research be defined for the purposes of data sharing?

The Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA) Code of Practice does not explicitly define this but does say that the research powers support: “helping researchers and policy-makers build a better understanding of how people live their lives, their patterns of need and use of different services and the resultant outcomes, to support the design and delivery of more effective and efficient public services.”

It explains that data can be used if the purpose “serves the public good”, meaning the use must do one or more of the following:

  • provide an evidence base for public policy decision-making.
  • provide an evidence base for public service delivery.
  • provide an evidence base for decisions which are likely to significantly benefit the economy, society or quality of life of people in the UK, UK nationals or people born in the UK now living abroad.
  • replicate, validate, challenge or review existing research and proposed research publications, including official statistics.
  • significantly extend understanding of social or economic trends or events by improving knowledge or challenging widely accepted analyses.
  • improve the quality, coverage or presentation of existing research, including official or National Statistics.

We would highlight that the focus of this framework is on the use and the public benefits deriving from the research, regardless of professional background or academic discipline.

Do you have any concerns regarding the Government’s proposals regarding the use of AI?

While giving evidence to the Committee on 8 June, we briefly discussed AI and its challenges for transparency. I noted then that I would like to see the various groups thinking about the ethics of AI convened by government to create “a set of clear ethical procedures.” I also highlighted the need for good regulation of AI by regulators with an understanding of both the models and the data being used.

What progress is being made on digital skills in government and what role are you playing in improving them?

We have recognised the need to increase data skills and awareness in government, and through our Data Science Campus, we aim to build data science capability across the public sector. This work is aligned to the National Data Strategy and is achieved through a range of programmes and community engagement. In 2021/22 the Data Science Campus has provided data science learning to over 6,000 people across a wide variety of organisations and experience levels.

At the top of government, the Data Science Masterclass for Senior Leaders is being rolled out to senior leaders, predominantly permanent secretaries and Senior Civil Servants with plans to expand across the public sector. Over 4,500 learners have registered across 48 departments and agencies, with further cohorts planned. We have also developed a core data science foundational curriculum and learning pathway that is delivered across the public sector, including the Civil Service Fast Stream. This is an optional part of the Fast Stream curriculum and mandatory for 300 generalists, thereby increasing the data skills of future leaders.

The Campus also support more technical training such as the specialist Data Science Graduate Programme, a two-year programme covering core data science skills available to existing civil servants and new joiners. We are also working with academic partners to deliver a government designed master’s programme (MDataGov) and to provide placements and secondments for students at all levels.

Finally, we run accelerator and mentoring programmes. In 2021 the accelerator programmes in data science and data visualisation had a cohort of 57 from across a variety of public sector organisations. Our Community Programme supports the data science specialist community across government and recently delivered a hugely successful Data Science Festival which had over 90 speakers, presentations, a hackathon, training sessions, community and social events delivered virtually to over 3,000 participants.

Through my role as Head of the Analysis Function, we aim to integrate analysts in all facets of government. The proliferation of data has expanded the scale of the task but also means analysis can have a greater impact than ever before.

To take advantage of the opportunities presented by analysis (and avoid pitfalls), it is necessary for analytical skills to extend beyond traditional professional boundaries. By operating as a function, professional analysts will act as the catalyst for other professions contributing to analytical insight. This will be built on multi-disciplinary partnerships and developing capability.

To that end, we recently undertook an audit of the analysis skills within the Policy Profession, which highlighted where we need to focus our attention on continuing to mature these skills. We will use the recommendations in the report to continue work together to drive enhanced analytical skills across government.

I hope this is helpful to the Committee, and please do let me know if I can assist further.

 

Yours sincerely,

Professor Sir Ian Diamond

 

Office for Statistics Regulation correspondence with the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on transparency of data related to the Levelling Up Fund

Dear Mr Betts,

Accessibility of Levelling Up policy funding stream data

I write regarding your recent letter to Neil O’Brien MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution, at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), requesting access to data on the various Levelling Up policy funding streams.

At the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), we share your support for the transparency of data that is in the public interest and required for key decisions underpinning policy making.

You may be aware that we corresponded with DLUHC from August 2021 to November 2021, asking for greater transparency around data on the Levelling Up Fund and the related ‘prioritisation of places model’.

OSR expects such data to be made publicly available, as outlined in our guidance on intelligent transparency. This guidance has been endorsed by the Civil Service Chief Operating Officer, Alex Chisholm.

Please let me know if there is anything you would like from us in support of your request, or if you would like a meeting to discuss further.

Yours sincerely

Ed Humpherson

Office for National Statistics correspondence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding UK wide census data

Dear William,

Thank you for your letter of 14 June 2022 regarding census response rates in Scotland and the implications for the integrity of UK-wide data. I will answer your specific questions in turn, but first I wanted to emphasise the close working relationship between all UK Census offices. We have offered and provided support to National Records of Scotland (NRS) including sharing designs, seconding staff, and are now working with them to develop methods to maximise the accuracy of their Census estimates.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also worked with NRS to establish an international steering group, which is providing the highest quality technical expertise, advice and challenge to NRS on census matters. This group is advising NRS to focus efforts toward a good census coverage survey, particularly in regions where responses were lowest, and strengthen the use of administrative data to supplement census data sources in their statistical production, including a clear steer to prioritise the early acquisition of new administrative data sources. This oversight will offer NRS the best possible opportunity to deliver a high-quality outcome for Scotland that will, in turn, contribute to high-quality UK statistics.

The ONS has committed an internationally renowned team of experts equipped with decades of demographic experience to work alongside NRS. Through a combination of this world-leading expertise, the ambitious use of supplementary administrative data, and sophisticated estimation methods, I remain confident that together we will deliver robust UK-wide estimates of the population.

What assessment has been made of the reasons underlying the low response rate in certain areas, and what steps were taken to avoid this occurrence? To what extent is the separate delivery of the Scottish Census considered to have impacted the response rate?

The Census in Scotland is a devolved matter; our assessment of the reasons underlying a low response rate in some areas and the associated mitigations has therefore been formed through our close working partnership with NRS.

The decision by Scottish Ministers to move Scotland’s Census to March 2022 was informed by NRS analysis of the potential impact of COVID-19 on the quality of an operation in March 2021. NRS adopted a diverse and inclusive approach to public awareness around census through media and physical advertising, follow-up reminders, field staff, and focused efforts in areas of low return; approaches comparable to those of the ONS and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). Evidence gathered in Scotland at the end of the collection phase reported that ‘too busy’ and ‘not aware of the Census or the need to complete it’ were the more common reasons given by householders who had yet to return.

As already mentioned, in light of lower than anticipated returns, the ONS and the Registrar General for Scotland established an international steering group of census and coverage experts. Despite these challenges in the collection phase, having considered the position and the planned next steps with the census in detail, the steering group have confirmed that there is a stable foundation from which to move
from census collection onto the next stage of the census operation, namely the census coverage survey and the incorporation of administrative data into estimates. It is the combination of census returns, coverage survey, administrative data, and estimation methodology that will deliver high quality census outputs for Scotland.

What are the implications of Scotland’s lower response rate for the quality and comparability of UK-wide population statistics?

By taking the actions outlined above, through a combination of census data, supplementary administrative data, and sophisticated estimation methods, we believe that it will be possible to deliver a high-quality outcome for Scotland that will, in turn, contribute to high-quality UK-wide population statistics.

What actions will be taken to quality-assure the Scottish Census data in order to reduce the impact of the lower response rate on the standards of UK-wide population statistics?

NRS remain committed to continuing to produce the best possible population estimates for Scotland, which will be used to produce UK-level population estimates. They currently produce annual official population figures for Scotland using data from a range of sources including the Census, registration data on births and deaths, migration estimates, and a wide range of other administrative data sources. NRS continue to improve these statistics through augmentation of existing and new administrative data sources, ensuring the focus is to deliver population estimates that are accessible and valuable for users.

NRS continue to work closely with partner organisations across the UK, including the ONS and NISRA, to ensure that UK population data and analysis is coherent, comparable and understandable for all users across the UK.

The Committee might also wish to note that the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) is currently assessing the Scottish Census, including how NRS are responding to the current situation and the methods and quality assurance they will put in place to provide the best quality data and statistics on the population of Scotland. The OSR has, in both its preliminary findings assessment report for Censuses in the UK, and in subsequent assessment reports for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, highlighted UK data and continues to engage with all three census offices in this regard. I am sure the Director General for Regulation, Ed Humpherson, will keep the Committee informed of its findings, which it plans to publish in November.

Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond

Office for National Statistics written evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry on aligning the UK’s economic goals with environmental sustainability

Dear Mr Dunne,
Thank you for your letter of 5 April 2022, following oral evidence from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the inquiry, Aligning the UK’s economic goals with environmental sustainability.

We welcome both the Committee’s recognition of our work to date on wellbeing, the environmental accounts, and the cross-government UK climate change statistics portal, and its recommendations for potential future work. While a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) metric will always be required to measure the economy, we also accept the need for a broader set of indicators to account for wider environmental and social progress, building on our Sustainable Development Goals and National Wellbeing resources.

In particular, your main recommendation was that:

“The ONS publish quarterly estimates of greenhouse gas emissions alongside GDP figures, as part of the same release. As further methodologies are developed to improve the means of accounting for the impact of nature depletion, we suggest that the ONS consider including the relevant outputs in these releases. The ONS would thereby help to provide greater focus on the climate and biodiversity impact of particular policies in the public policy debate.”

Building on the inclusion of environmental and natural capital accounts in the Blue Book, we will be increasing the prominence of ‘Beyond GDP’ elements of our outputs. We will publish a pilot publication of climate change-related statistics on the same day as the preliminary quarterly estimate of UK GDP on 12 May 2022. Subject to assessment of impact and feedback, the intention would be for this to become a regular quarterly publication. In addition, we will look to publish wellbeing-related statistics alongside preliminary GDP estimates from 12 August 2022.

We produce annual estimates of residence-based greenhouse gas emissions, which enable direct sectoral comparison with the national accounts. We have been reviewing options for a quarterly estimate of this emissions measure and will publish an initial methodological
publication also on 12 May 2022. Further progress will be informed by stakeholder and user feedback.

Linking economic activity with related environmental impacts through GDP or wealth accounts is a substantial undertaking. Our work developing robust estimates of UK natural capital accounts are world leading. Our work to adapt these figures to link with the national accounts is in progress, including publishing a new approach bringing together statistical indicators of the extent and condition of nature in the UK on 3 May 2022.

We will set out our Beyond GDP plans on 12 May, with a timeline for delivering an initial assessment of the environmental impact of changes in quarterly GDP by the end of 2023. We will also publish our detailed workplan for natural capital accounts development by July 2022.

We will be taking the Committee’s recommendations into account as we deliver the above and accelerate our work and will update the Committee about this later in the year. We will also share all upcoming relevant publications noted within this response with the Committee when published.

Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond

UK Statistics Authority correspondence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding Public Confidence in Official Statistics report

Dear William,

I am writing to draw your attention to the latest Public Confidence in Official Statistics report (2021), which has been produced by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) on behalf of the UK Statistics Authority. I am happy to share that the report finds that public confidence in official statistics remains high, and engagement with official statistics has increased since 2018.

Awareness of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Authority has increased from 70% and 33% in 2018 to 75% and 48% in 2021 respectively. Furthermore, for the first time people were asked if they were aware of the Office for Statistics Regulation, with 41% saying that they were.

Notably, 96% of people able to express a view agreed that it is important for there to be a body such as the Authority to speak out against the misuse of statistics, and 94% agreed about the importance of there being a body to ensure that official statistics are produced without political interference.

Members might also be interested to note that a very high proportion of respondents trusted the ONS (89% of those able to express a view) and our statistics (87%). Of those able to express an opinion, trust in the ONS was highest of all institutions asked about, including the Government, the Bank of England, and the civil service as a whole. 82% of people able to express an opinion agreed that official statistics are generally accurate, up from 78% in 2018. Meanwhile 44% said they had used ONS COVID-19 statistics; they were more commonly used than any of the other statistics asked about with the exception of the census.

This report is very welcome, especially following our hard work to provide clear insights throughout the pandemic. We are proud that the public support our vision of statistics that serve the public good, which we will continue to deliver with honesty, and free from political interference.

A copy of the report will be annexed to this letter for the Committee’s information.

Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond

Office for Statistics Regulation follow-up written evidence to the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on UK science, research and technology capability and influence in global disease outbreaks

Dear Mr Clark,

On 2 March 2022, I gave oral evidence to the Science and Technology Committee. In my evidence in response to a question about the approach to measuring excess deaths I referred to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) approach, stating that: “For the five-year rolling average excess deaths, ONS has decided for 2022 to drop 2020 from the five-year calculation… It is 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 21, and it has dropped 2020 because 2020 had such an unusual peak of deaths.”

I wanted to clarify that there are a number of ways to measure excess deaths, that is, the difference between the expected number of deaths and the actual number of deaths in a given period of time. The ONS headline approach, shown in the weekly deaths publication is as I described above and has been agreed across the devolved administrations. ONS publications also refer to excess deaths based on the five-year average from 2015 to 2019. ONS has published a blog explaining more about its choice of five-year average.

As the ONS blog notes, more complex methods can also be used to calculate expected deaths. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) uses a more sophisticated modelling approach, taking into consideration the ageing population, differing mortality trends in subgroups of the population and variation in registrations around bank holidays. OHID developed a different method to that of ONS because it needed more accurate data for operational decision making during the pandemic. OHID continues to use the years prior to the pandemic (2015-2019) as the five-year baseline for its measure of excess deaths.

I would be happy to discuss this further if you would find it helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Ed Humpherson

Director General for Regulation

 

UK Statistics Authority oral evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s pre-appointment hearing for Chair of the UK Statistics Authority

On Tuesday 29 March 2022 Sir Robert Chote, the Government’s preferred candidate for Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, gave evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s pre-appointment hearing for Chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

A transcript of which has been published on the UK Parliament website.