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

Ed Humpherson to Scott Heald: Temporary suspension of accreditation: Breast Cancer Screening Statistics and Scottish Health Costs

Dear Scott,

Thank you for your letter of 24 February outlining the data quality issues affecting Public Health Scotland’s breast cancer screening statistics and Scottish Health Services Costs (or “Costs Book”) publication.

Given the issues you have described, I agree to your request for the temporary suspension of accreditation for both sets of statistics. I note that you are considering designating these as official statistics in development while you continue your investigations and improvement work. We have published Official Statistics in Development guidance to help producers understand when and how to use this label.

In your letter you explain that the data quality issues affecting the breast cancer data for Scotland has affected all statistics published from 2015/16 onwards. Therefore, the suspension should also cover those earlier releases, and a notice should be published to explain the issue to users and outline the work under way to investigate it. Given this is the second issue with aggregate data from this IT supplier, we welcome your investigation into whether the problem affects other data submissions.

I welcome your commitment to keeping OSR informed as work progresses on both publications. Once the necessary improvements have been delivered, we would be happy to discuss the most appropriate timing for a compliance review to consider the reinstatement of accredited official statistics status.

Yours sincerely

Ed Humpherson
Director General for OSR

Scott Heald to Ed Humpherson: Inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment compliance review: PHS Actions

Dear Siobhan,

Thank you for carrying out the helpful compliance review of the PHS Stage of Treatment statistics. I was delighted that these statistics retained the accredited official statistics status following my team’s work to develop their trustworthiness, value and quality in 2025. I particularly welcome your acknowledgement of our work to ensure the changes to improve the statistics’ relevance and timeliness was conducted transparently and with integrity.

We have made the following changes in response to OSR’s recommendations to enhance users’ understanding of the statistics:

  • Provide more specific guidance about the comparability of waiting times statistics pre and post guidance implementation and more prominent advice about the risks of adding waiting lists together
    • The 28th April publication (based on data up to end of March 2026) will include an updated version of the PHS Impact Assessment (first published in October 2025) incorporating data up to the end of March 2026. Our commentary will be clearer about the size of the change for each of the key metrics and we will refer to this in the monthly report published in April and in future releases where applicable.
    • The 3rd February 2026 monthly publication (based on data up to end of December 2025) reinstated our advice (highlighted in bold) that the number of ongoing waits 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 warning will be included in future monthly releases and we will proactively engage with users who use the statistics in this way.
  • Explain how these statistics relate to similar measures across the UK
    • The 28th April publication (based on data up to end of March 2026) will identify and summarise key messages from the existing work published by ONS on UK health statistics’ comparability. These insights will continue to be included in future monthly releases. We will also 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 highlighted the need to record and publish details of the full list of roles receiving pre-release access (PRA), review the list regularly and ensure PRA is justified, proportionate and minimised. We work with colleagues in Scottish Government and NHS Boards to coordinate the PRA process and have not, to date, experienced issues arising from misuse or early reporting of information provided via PRA. I share OSR’s commitment to ensuring the PRA process is transparent and robust and have taken the steps outlined below to enhance our approach.

  • From today, the PHS website’s about our statistics page has a new pre-release access transparency section listing the roles that require PRA to all PHS statistics releases as well as those who require PRA to the Stage of Treatment release.
  • As the weeks progress, we will continue to update this new section with PRA details for all other PHS statistics releases.
  • I have reviewed the SoT PRA list and the list of roles who receive PRA for all PHS releases. I am assured that the roles named in those are justified, proportionate and we are appropriately minimising the risk of leaks and disorderly publication. I will of course continue to monitor these lists as we publish them going forward for all other releases.

I am copying this letter to Alistair McAlpine, Scottish Government Chief Statistician and Anita Morrison and Nicola Edge, Heads of Health and Social Care Analysis, Scottish Government, whose teams work with PHS to manage the PRA process and are supporting us to implement the changes outlined above.

Yours sincerely,

Scott Heald

Director, Data and Digital Innovation

Head of Profession for Statistics

Related links: 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 waiting times statistics – Office for Statistics Regulation 

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

Dear Scott,

We have completed a compliance review of Public Health Scotland (PHS)’s statistics on inpatient, day case and outpatient stage of treatment waiting times 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 the improvements that PHS has made, including the move to monthly reporting and the transparent implementation of revised waiting time definitions. The review also identifies a small number of areas where further action is needed, particularly around supporting users to understand comparability over time, clarifying how these statistics relate to similar measures across the UK, and strengthening transparency and central control over pre-release access.

We note that PHS is already progressing work to ensure full compliance with the updated Code of Practice for Statistics (Code 3.0), and we welcome the commitment to embed these requirements as part of ongoing development of the statistics.

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

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:

Letter from Scott Heald to Ed Humpherson: NHS stage of treatment waiting times statistics 

Letter from Scott Heald to Ed Humpherson: NHS diagnostics activity and stage of treatment waiting times statistics   

Letter from Ed Humpherson to Scott Heald: NHS diagnostic activity and stage of treatment waiting times statistics