Scott Heald to Siobhan Tuohy-Smith: Compliance review of inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of waiting times statistics, follow-up

Dear Siobhan,

Stage of Treatment compliance review – implementation of recommendations

Thank you again for carrying out the PHS Stage of Treatment compliance review which took place in December 2025. We were delighted that these statistics retained their accredited official statistics status following the set of improvements we implemented in October 2025 to improve their relevance and timeliness.

In February 2026 we wrote outlining our planned actions to address the compliance review’s recommendations, focused on enhancing user understanding of the Stage of Treatment statistics. We have now implemented these improvements, including:

  • The 3rd February 2026 monthly publication reinstated and emphasised our advice that the number of ongoing waits for inpatients, day cases, new outpatients and any other service (e.g. diagnostics) should not be added together to determine the proportion of the total population waiting for these types of care. This caution is now routinely included in monthly releases, and we will proactively engage with users who misuse the statistics in this way.
  • The 28th April monthly publication was accompanied by an extended PHS Impact Assessment incorporating data up to the end of March 2026. This document examines the impact of the 2023 guidance on waiting time statistics observed across the year. It supports users to distinguish between the changes observed in key waiting times performance indicators over time that are due to the new guidance and those that reflect real change. Key findings from this analysis have also been incorporated into the monthly report.
  • The 28th April monthly publication also identifies and summarises key messages from the work published by ONS on UK health statistics’ comparability. It includes PHS’s endorsement of the ONS finding that direct comparisons on waiting times performance cannot be reliably drawn across the four nations, and asks users of these official statistics to refrain from drawing UK-wide comparisons. This message will continue to be included in future monthly releases. We continue to engage with UK contacts and groups to identify other information that we could provide to help users understand what data can and can’t be compared across the UK.

The review also included recommendations relating to PHS pre-release access (PRA). As previously shared with you, we now have a dedicated page on the PHS website with details of PRA recipients, our work to extend this to all statistics publications is continuing.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Heald

Director, Data and Digital Innovation

Head of Profession for Statistics

Related links: Scott Heald to Ed Humpherson: Inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment compliance review: PHS Actions – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Compliance review of inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment waiting times produced by Public Health Scotland  – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Siobhan Tuohy-Smith to Scott Heald: Compliance review of inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of waiting times statistics, follow-up

Dear Scott,

Thank you for your letter outlining the recent work undertaken by Public Health Scotland (PHS) in response to the recommendations contained in our compliance review of PHS’s statistics on inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment waiting times.

The actions you have taken to improve guidance to users on exercising caution when adding together the number of ongoing waits are welcomed. Your commitment to proactively engage with users who misuse the statistics is a good demonstration of our expectations of producers in accordance with the Standards for the Public Use of Statistics, Data and Wider Analysis. The inclusion of an extended PHS Impact Assessment in the April monthly publication appropriately supports users to distinguish between the changes observed in key waiting times performance indicators over time, and is communicated clearly.

The inclusion of key messages on cross-UK health statistics’ comparability also provides helpful guidance on the appropriate use of the available statistics. The public interest in this topic was highlighted in a public statement by OSR last month. PHS’s commitment to ongoing engagement with other UK producers to provide more support to users will further strengthen the value of these statistics.

These actions are in addition to work you informed us of in February to improve the recording, robustness and transparency of pre-release access procedures. We note that work to extend this good practice to all PHS statistics publications is ongoing.

Taken together, this work represents a strong and constructive response to the recommendations from our compliance review. I would like to thank you and your team again for your ongoing commitment to improving these important statistics and supporting their appropriate use.

I am copying this letter to Mairi Watson, Information Consultant for Planned Care Waiting Times Analytical Team.

Yours sincerely,

Siobhan Tuohy-Smith
Assessment Programme Lead
Office for Statistics Regulation

Related links: Scott Heald to Ed Humpherson: Inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment compliance review: PHS Actions – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Compliance review of inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment waiting times produced by Public Health Scotland  – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Anna Price to Sandra Tudor: Compliance review of Energy Performance of Buildings Certificates

Dear Sandra

We have completed a compliance review of Energy Performance of Buildings Certificates (EPC) statistics produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) against the standards of the Code of Practice for Statistics (the Code). These statistics are currently published as official statistics. Our review considered how the statistics have been developed in relation to the Code and whether there are any areas for improvement.

Based on the findings of our review, we conclude that the statistics meet the standards of Trustworthiness, Quality and Value in the Code. Key strengths we identified include: the clarity with which the team presents the methodology and quality assurance process; engagement with stakeholders ahead of tentative policy changes; and the comprehensive user engagement the team is planning. Our review identifies a small number of recommendations to improve the statistics, including improving some aspects of how the statistics are presented, providing information about the comparability of the statistics, and publishing documents required by the updated Code of Practice for Statistics (Code 3.0).

We expect MHCLG to have implemented Code 3.0 by August 2026, and to provide a public update on its progress against our recommendations by the end of November 2026.

I am grateful for the positive engagement from you and your team – in particular, for acting promptly on feedback raised by my team during the review.

I am copying this letter to Claire Smith, Principal Statistician Energy Efficiency and EPCs, and Chauncey Glass, Head of Housing Evidence, Research and Surveys.

Yours sincerely

Dr Anna Price
Assessment Programme Lead

Ed Humpherson to John Wilkins: Metrics in the violence against women and girls strategy

Dear John,

We welcome the publication of the UK Government’s new violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategy, Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls.

The performance framework used to monitor progress on the strategy comprises a headline metric, several supporting headline metrics and a range of sub-metrics. Because VAWG is a complex topic and covers a range of crime types, it is sensible to use a broad set of metrics.

The headline metric is a combined measure of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking, calculated using data from the self-completion module of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published the first estimate of this combined measure in July 2025. The ONS publication provides a clear explanation of the method used to calculate the metric and outlines its limitations.

However, in our view, the strategy does not contain sufficient details about the combined measure or the supporting headline metrics and sub-metrics. It does not explain why certain forms of violence are excluded from the combined measure. In particular, it is unclear why sexual harassment is excluded, given that it is the most prevalent form of VAWG and is also captured through the CSEW self-completion module. Additionally, the data sources for the supporting headline metrics and sub-metrics are not clear.

We think it would be helpful if the Home Office published a more detailed description of each metric, including why it was selected, the data source, and the status of the metric or data source (whether it is an official statistic or not). This would support public understanding and scrutiny of the metrics.

The strategy highlights data quality issues and states that the Home Office will work with data partners, including police forces, to improve the quality of data available. However, the nature of these data quality issues and planned improvements are not explained. It would therefore be helpful if any supporting information also discussed the strengths and limitations, in relation to data quality, of each data source, and signposts readers to existing information about data quality.

Your analytical team told us that it recognises that some metrics are nuanced and that this nuance requires space to explain fully. We understand that developments and trends in the measures will be reported on as part of annual progress reports. To enhance transparency about the metrics, we encourage you to publish additional supporting information sooner.

I am copying this letter to Tom Bucke, Deputy Director, Drugs, Exploitation and Abuse Analysis; Simon Palmer, Director, Home Office Analysis & Insight; Gisela Carr, Deputy Director, Interpersonal Abuse Unit; Rachel Lloyd, Director, Violence Against Women and Girls; Richard Clarke, Director General, Public Safety Group.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Humpherson
Director General for OSR

Ed Humpherson to Mary Gregory: Accreditation of the 2021 Census in England and Wales outputs and Review of mid-2024 population estimates for England and Wales

Dear Mary,

I am writing to provide updates on two recent pieces of regulatory work that we have undertaken in relation to population statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Confirmation of accreditation of the 2021 Census in England and Wales outputs (excluding gender identity statistics)

We have reviewed the actions that ONS has taken to address the requirement outlined in our third and final assessment report on the 2021 Census in England and Wales. On behalf of the Board of the UK Statistics Authority, I am pleased to confirm that these statistics comply with the standards of Trustworthiness, Quality and Value in the Code of Practice for Statistics (the Code) and should continue to be labelled as accredited official statistics. The detail supporting our judgement is set out in the annex to this letter. I would like to thank the ONS teams involved in Census 2021 for how they have responded to the requirement and our other recommendations.

ONS’s report ‘Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on England and Wales Census 2021 outputs’, published in November 2025, addresses our requirement by setting out which Census 2021 estimates may have been affected by the pandemic, why and how users should interpret them, alongside providing appropriate signposting to alternative sources.

However, we found that ONS provides only very limited justification for its confidence that Census 2021-based mid-year population estimates in England and Wales – which we have also reviewed (see below) – are free from systemic pandemic-related effects. Further assurance and clearer explanation of remaining uncertainties are therefore essential. We will monitor ONS’s progress in improving this essential assurance through the follow up of our mid-year population estimates compliance review.

In response to the recommendations in our assessment report ONS has taken several positive steps to strengthen transparency, accessibility and user understanding across its census outputs. This has included providing clearer and more consistent communication of revisions, corrections and quality information. ONS is also making progress in helping users more easily find and appropriately interpret statistics through its wider website transformation programme, with improved navigation, clearer signposting to quality and methods content, and enhanced explanatory features within articles. We also note ONS’s continued commitment to effective user engagement and collaboration.

Compliance review of ONS’s mid-2024 population estimates (MYEs) for England and Wales

Today we have published the findings of our compliance review of ONS’s mid-year populations estimates for England and Wales against the standards of the Code. The review considered whether these statistics continue to meet the standards of Trustworthiness, Quality and Value and whether they should retain their accredited official statistics status.

These statistics provide the official annual measure of the population in England and Wales, offering essential insights into population size and distribution that underpin a range of economic statistics and inform key national and local operational, financial and policy decisions. Our review concludes that MYEs continue to provide an important and valued source of population insight.

However, our review sets out our significant concerns about the quality of subnational estimates, particularly in local authority areas that are subject to high population churn.

Our review identifies four requirements which must be met for the MYEs to retain their status as accredited official statistics. These requirements aim to strengthen user confidence as ONS focuses on improving the traditional cohort component-based MYEs and confidence in the Census 2021 baseline that underpins them, improve users’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of the estimates, and enhance the guidance that supports their appropriate use. ONS must update us on how it has met these requirements before or at the same time as its next planned publication of the MYEs in summer 2026.

Our review also identifies several further recommendations to enhance the Trustworthiness, Quality and Value of these statistics. The recommendations focus on strengthening user confidence in ONS’s improvement plans and estimates, enhancing quality assurance and addressing user concerns related to revisions and publication delays. We expect ONS to report publicly to us on its progress in relation to these recommendations by the end of 2026. Given ONS’s focus on the continuous improvement of the MYEs, our review findings should also play a central role in shaping planned work.

I am grateful for the constructive engagement from your teams throughout these reviews.

I am copying this letter to Stephanie Howarth, Chief Statistician Welsh Government, and the Statistics Head of Profession Office at ONS.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Humpherson
Director General for OSR

 

Annex A – Review of actions taken in response to the Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics: 2021 Census in England and Wales

Requirement 1: To support user confidence and the appropriate and ongoing use of census data affected by the pandemic (including where census data are used as a data source in other statistics, such as the annual mid-year estimates), ONS should:

  • provide more detail in its guidance to help users understand what weight can be placed on affected statistics in decision making.
  • signpost to other relevant topic statistics available for 2021, beyond those based on census, that could also provide users with a more holistic view of a particular topic.
  • explain, by census topic and geographic breakdowns, which estimates may be affected and why. For local authorities in England and Wales, the information provided should include an analysis that identifies factors or characteristics of an area that may lead to increased uncertainty for that area.

Progress made by ONS: On 6 November 2025, ONS published a report titled ‘Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on England and Wales Census 2021 outputs’. The report sets out how the pandemic affected key Census 2021 topics and highlights implications for use of these statistics. The report also explains that census data form the basis for mid-year population estimates (MYEs) and provide a benchmark against which the quality of its admin-based population estimates (ABPEs) can be assessed.

Taking each part of the requirement in turn:

1) ‘Provide more detail in its guidance to help users understand what weight can be placed on affected statistics in decision making’

In its November 2025 report, ONS provides information about implications for use. This information uses language like “take care when using” and “factor in” to help users understand how to use the data. The impact report is also now signposted within relevant quality reports, such as the MYE quality and methodology information (QMI) and the Census QMI, to help users find it.

2) Signpost to other relevant topic statistics available for 2021, beyond those based on census, that could also provide users with a more holistic view of a particular topic

For each topic ONS sets out possible impacts, other data sources and implications for use, for example, Greater London Authority’s report, Population change in London during the pandemic, and Higher Education Statistics Agency’s (HESA’s) report, The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 2020/2021 Student data.

3) Explain, by census topic and geographic breakdowns, which estimates may be affected and why. For local authorities in England and Wales, the information provided should include an analysis that identifies factors or characteristics of an area that may lead to increased uncertainty for that area.

ONS’s November 2025 report sets out, by census topic, the extent to which estimates may have been affected by the pandemic. It explains that some topics were more affected than others and highlights those urban areas and local authorities with higher population churn, such as areas with large student populations, are more likely to experience increased uncertainty.

ONS did not identify specific local authorities that are most affected, noting that in principle all areas were affected by the pandemic. Instead, it outlined the characteristics associated with higher levels of uncertainty.

ONS told us it is continuing to do more research to better understand movement to ensure the estimates are fit for the future. ONS is researching how supplementing its internal migration methods with tax and benefit data may improve the lag and accuracy issues of migration, particularly that of students.

OSR view: In summary, ONS’s report ‘Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on England and Wales Census 2021 outputs’ addresses this requirement. The report explains that Census 2021 provides a unique snapshot of the population during the pandemic, which may differ from non-pandemic conditions for some topics.

ONS’s research also shows that ABPEs, even when not coverage-adjusted by census, showed good comparability to 2021 MYEs (2021 census-based). A total of 307/331 local authorities were within 3.8% of the MYE population, a target quality threshold ONS held itself to. There was some drift, but ONS says it rigorously describes the shortfalls of the admin-based system, such as changes in patient register completion during the pandemic, and delays to birth registrations. ONS sees this as an independent measure of population that corroborates with census estimates, implying the measures, even at local levels, are accurate, despite Census 2021 being undertaken during a pandemic.

However, separately ONS needs to do further work to provide assurance in its confidence that MYEs do not have systemic pandemic effects in the years since 2021. While ONS states that census-based MYEs are robust and free from systemic pandemic effects, it provides limited justification for this confidence. As this issue relates to onward use rather than concerns about the quality of the census statistics themselves, we will close this requirement and take this issue forward through OSR’s compliance review of the mid-year population estimates.

Ed Humpherson to John Wilkins: Asylum Seeker Hotel Population Statistics

Dear John,  

Thank you for your letter informing me of the unscheduled release of an internal Home Office figure that appears similar to an upcoming official statistic from the Asylum Seeker Hotel Population Statistics series. I agree with your view that this is a breach of the Code of Practice for Statistics. 

I note your reasons for deciding not to produce an ad-hoc release for the figure in line with published guidance on the use of statistics during an election period. Whilst this is an unexpected release of a figure during the pre-election period, the figure was not an official statistic in its final form, and therefore I support your decision to continue with the planned orderly release of the Asylum Seeker Hotel Population Statistics series on 21 May and monitor for any continued use of the unvalidated figure. 

In line with reporting concerns under the Code of Practice for Statistics, I welcome your additional action in response to the release by informing your users through the Statistics at Home office webpage. 

Thank you for your openness. My team will remain in contact should there be any further developments. 

Yours sincerely,  

Ed Humpherson
Director General for OSR 

Related links: https: John Wilkins to Ed Humpherson: Asylum Seeker Hotel Population Statistics

Rob Kent-Smith to Andrea Prophet: Compliance review of abortion statistics for England and Wales  

Dear Andrea, 

We have completed a compliance review of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)’s abortion statistics for England and Wales against the standards of the Code of Practice for Statistics. The review considered whether these statistics continue to meet the standards of Trustworthiness, Quality and Value and should retain their accredited official statistics status.  

Based on the findings of the review, we conclude that the statistics continue to comply with the Code and should retain their accredited official statistics designation. We welcome DHSC’s continuing work to review the methods for producing the statistics and highlight the accessibility of the publication as a key strength.   

The review also identifies a small number of areas where further action is needed. These include providing more comprehensive information about the delay to publication of the 2024 data, improving the presentation of quality information, providing more information for users about the transition to the new data processing system and increasing user engagement.   

I am grateful for the constructive engagement from your team throughout the review and look forward to receiving updates on progress against the recommendations.  

Yours sincerely  

Rob Kent-Smith   

Deputy Head of the Office for Statistics Regulation 

Related links:

Ed Humpherson to Lord Moylan: Abortion Statistics for England and Wales (18 June 2025) – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Lord Moylan to Ed Humpherson: Abortion Statistics for England and Wales (6 May 2025) – Office for Statistics Regulation  

Ed Humpherson to Lord Moylan: Abortion Statistics for England and Wales (20 February 2025) – Office for Statistics Regulation  

Lord Moylan to Ed Humpherson: Abortion Statistics for England and Wales (20 January 2025) – Office for Statistics Regulation 

Siobhan Tuohy-Smith to Stephanie Howarth: Estimates of additional housing need

Dear Stephanie

We have completed our review of Welsh Government’s Estimates of additional housing need. These statistics are currently published as official statistics. Our findings are summarised in a separate report.

During our review we found the presentation of the estimates to be of a high standard. We commend the team for its leadership in taking a unique, open and transparent approach in developing these new official statistics based on the available official sources, in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. We have also identified some areas where these estimates can be strengthened in line with the Code.

We have shared our findings with your analysts and appreciate their positive engagement during this process. We have agreed that the team will review and consider the recommendations as they develop future estimates of additional housing need. We will continue to engage with the analytical team responsible as they take forward the recommendations.

I am copying this letter to Rachel Dolman and Melanie Brown the lead analysts for these estimates.

Yours sincerely

Siobhan Tuohy-Smith

Assessment Programme Lead

Related links: Mark Pont to Stephanie Howarth, Peter Whitehouse, Tracy Power, and David Marshall: Review of household estimates and projections for Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland 

Siobhan Tuohy-Smith to Jessie Evans: Compliance review of statistics from the Cyber Security Breaches Survey

Dear Jessie,

Compliance review of statistics from the Cyber Security Breaches Survey

We have completed a compliance review of the Cyber Security Breaches Survey statistics produced in partnership by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the Home Office against the standards of the Code of Practice for Statistics. These statistics are currently produced as official statistics.

Our review sets out our view on how the statistics from the Cyber Security Breaches Survey meet the standards of the Code. The review identifies a range of areas where the statistics demonstrate trustworthiness, quality and value, and makes three recommendations for improving the quality and value of the statistics.

I am grateful for the constructive engagement from your team throughout the review and hope our findings inform the ongoing development of these statistics.

I am copying this letter to John Wilkins, Chief Statistician at the Home Office; and Saman Rizvi, Statistician, Cyber Security & Digital Identity team at DSIT.

Yours sincerely,

Siobhan Tuohy‑Smith
Assessment Programme Lead


Related

Compliance review of statistics from the cyber security breaches survey

Rob Kent-Smith to Liz McKeown and Sarah Henry: Review of ONS’s Treatment of Seasonality in Quarterly GDP statistics

Dear Liz and Sarah

Today we published our Review of ONS’s Treatment of Seasonality in quarterly GDP.

This review was prompted by concerns from some users, and media commentators, about the effectiveness of seasonal adjustment in the post pandemic period.

In recent years, quarterly (and monthly) GDP statistics published by ONS have shown stronger growth in the first half of the year than in the second half. This recent pattern of stronger growth in the first part of the year has reflected, at least in part, a series of one-off events (for example the bringing forward of economic activity in advance of the expected levying of increased tariffs).

Current statistical tests show no evidence of significant residual seasonality in quarterly or monthly GDP. However, emerging seasonal patterns can take several years to detect using standard methods. This means there remains a risk that early signs of change may not yet be visible in the statistical tests. It is important that ONS keeps and open mind as more data becomes available to understand this phenomenon.

To strengthen ONS’s approach going forward, we recommend that ONS should:

  • Seek external assurance on its approach, particularly on the detection of emerging seasonal signals.
  • Should continue increasing transparency around its methods and uncertainties.
  • Complete work to rebuild and stabilise the specialist team responsible for seasonal adjustment.

We note and welcome the steps that ONS has already taken to address concerns in each of these areas. We look forward to considering evidence on further actions ONS provides as part of its regular reporting on progress with its plans for economic statistics.

Yours sincerely

Rob Kent-Smith

Deputy Head of the Office for Statistics Regulation

 

Related Links:

ONS response to the OSR compliance review on the treatment of seasonality in quarterly GDP