Dear Ed,
Thank you and Rob for the recent discussion, it was gratifying to hear that the OSR has valued some of our commentary. However, without wishing to carp in any way, I continue to believe our contribution would have been greater had there been a clearer understanding of the structure and purpose of the various elements of UKSA. We have frequently commented on how our ‘outsider’ perspective differs from your ‘insider’ view and we believe the difference results from the failure of UKSA to communicate its activities effectively.
There are many examples of the difficulties created by poor communications but, probably, none are more significant than the fact that Better Statistics CIC do not understand how the CPI and the CPIH retain their status as Accredited Official Statistics, given the many errors we and others have exposed. Moreover we fail to understand how they can be considered to be “statistics for the public good”.
Whilst we recognise that the OSR’s role as the assessor of the efficacy of these measures must be influenced by the two Advisory Panels on Consumer Price Statistics (APCP), we have no explanation as to how the various parties actually inter-relate to achieve a co-ordinated opinion. In our view this lack of clarity contributes to the confusion evidenced by the public’s inability to recognise UKSA’s opinion of the value and purpose of these measures. A confusion recently highlighted by the BBC announcer who said that “most households” would be experiencing a higher inflation rate than the July rate published by the ONS. This dissonance, between personal experience and the ONS measures, lies at the core of the mistrust which many people have with our statistics. A mistrust that long preceded the controversies of the past year or two, with consequences that UKSA continue to ignore.
Turning to the wider issue of our economic statistics, we note that the web-site announcement of the OSR’s State of the UK Statistical System 2025, includes the assurance that “In our view, the Office for National Statistics (ONS)’s recently published plan for economic statistics provides the right foundations to restore confidence in ONS”, however we fail to see how that view is supported by the publication. Have we missed something? To us, the plan lacks explanation as to how the ambitious series of deadlines for improvements across every area will be achieved, even considering the additional ONS Survey Improvement and Enhancement Plan for Economic Statistics. Both plans appear to lack the details required to explain how resources will be deployed, with the main plan lacking explanation as to the objectives of, or reasons for, many of the activities.
See for example: “A2.3 Sustainable operation:
We are planning to extend the coverage of our Large Case Unit and our Account Management Units, and so extend their proven impact on data quality and simplify engagement with more businesses. We plan to expand their combined coverage from 150 today to:
- around 850 business units this year (2025 to 2026)
- increasing to in the region of 1,800 business units in 2026 to 2027
- rising to a combined total of around 4,000 business units by the end of 2027 to 2028.
BSC would prefer to see some explanation for these numbers – specifically what benefits are expected from the increased sample sizes? We would also prefer to see consideration of alternative approaches, such as the use of cluster sampling to reduce Household survey costs and a trial of mix-mode data collection to include alternative methods such as time use surveys. We consider that the latter would more readily capture the details of those persons seeking to hold down two or three jobs, or others with complex lifestyles. However, although the OSR is charged with preparing the annual reports on the state of the UK Statistics System, we understand that comments such as those above are not within your purview.
Meanwhile we welcome the ambition of the ONS for a “Refreshed Citizen Relationship – to improve trust, brand recognition and understanding of the importance of our surveys” and we hope that this will encourage more urgent consideration of the inflation measures as mentioned above. Also, we hope that the ONS now accept that not all citizens listen to radio 4! The frequent mentions of ONS activities on the Today Programme had been evidenced by the ONS as sufficient publicity, when BSC had suggested advertising the Covid-19 Infection Survey to improve the response rate from the lamentable 11% of households sampled.
Anyway, to return to our recent meeting. I am sure you will recall our opinion that the provision of prompt and informative minutes of the Advisory and Main Board meetings would greatly improve UKSA’s communications. It being expected that such meetings should be more robust in considering statistical details, because a statistic is a relatively ephemeral, point in time, estimation that, normally, will be different on another occasion. It is NOT immutable and one would expect the relative advisory boards to be more open in their discussions as to the level of reliability required and the methods used.
The current suppression of any disagreement is actually anathema to a healthy statistical operation, which should be more concerned with discussion of the policy risks associated with unreliable data. Public discussion of the important issues underlying such matters can only be for the public good. One clear recommendation we would make to improve public trust would be to provide a conduit for users to communicate their concerns directly to the appropriate advisory committee, particularly the two committees advising on inflation measurement. The SUN platform could be used for this purpose, were it to be more concerned to encourage public participation, instead of controlling it.
I hope you will give these remarks further thought and, possibly, discuss them with your colleagues. In particular, BSC would appreciate a direct answer as to the accreditation of the CPI and CPIH and, accordingly, we propose to publish this letter in due course.
Finally, we have given further thought to the proposed seminar “Growing the UK Economy – how can business contribute?“. That seminar was partly inspired by the fact that the business community was not well represented at the Assembly earlier this year, nor is business much engaged with the Government Statistical System in general.
We had hoped to make a contribution to a ‘refreshed citizen relationship’ with this seminar and we’d like to discuss that with you at your convenience.
With all good wishes,
Tony
On behalf of Better Statistics CIC
Related
Ed Humpherson to Tony Dent: ONS Economic Statistics Plan, Consumer Prices and UKSA Board and Panels