Statistical System leadership and direction

Over the past year, leadership across the statistical system has continued to operate in a context of transition and constraint. This section shows that interim arrangements for the National Statistician and Chair of the UK Statistics Authority have helped maintain continuity in the operation and governance of the UK statistical system during a period of leadership transition, but that the continuing absence of a substantive National Statistician has left the system without a single, visible leader to provide long-term strategic direction. Leadership at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has also become more open during the year, with greater transparency, stronger governance and more proactive engagement with users.

The section also considers how established Government Statistical Service (GSS) structures and the wider statistical community have supported co-ordination and collaboration across the system, and how leaders have taken more explicit prioritisation decisions in response to pressure on resources. These developments are taking place against a backdrop of continuing pressure on resources and capacity. Limited visibility of resources and capacity across the system makes it harder to judge whether current priorities are realistic and can be sustained.

Leadership transition

In May 2025, Sir Ian Diamond stepped down as National Statistician and Emma Rourke took on the role on an acting basis. During the year, the National Statistician and Permanent Secretary functions were separated, and Darren Tierney was appointed Permanent Secretary of ONS on a fixed-term basis. Since Emma Rourke’s departure in December 2025, the role of National Statistician has remained unfilled, with no interim National Statistician in post. 

The wider context for these changes was shaped by the independent review of ONS’s performance and culture led by Sir Robert Devereux, published in June 2025. The review concluded that ONS needed a focused and consistent effort to improve core statistics, that changes were needed in the way ONS is led, and that the governance of ONS and the wider statistical system merited further consideration. The UK Statistics Authority and Cabinet Office accepted all three recommendations. 

Leadership changes at the UK Statistics Authority also continued during the year. Sir Robert Chote stepped down as Chair in September 2025, and Penny Young, Deputy Chair of the Authority Board, took on the role on an interim basis. A substantive appointment has not yet been made. 

The Permanent Secretary and senior team at ONS have led recovery during this period, with greater openness about the challenges facing the organisation and the steps being taken to address them. We have also seen greater transparency, stronger governance and more proactive engagement with users. These developments provide a stronger basis for addressing the challenges facing ONS. 

Interim arrangements have helped provide continuity during a prolonged period of transition. Leadership across the system has relied more heavily on collective and delegated arrangements, supported by formal advisory and challenge mechanisms, including the National Statistician’s advisory committees and panels. These arrangements have helped maintain continuity, but they are not a substitute for stable substantive leadership. The continuing absence of a substantive National Statistician means the statistical system lacks a single, visible leader to provide long-term strategic direction, support system-wide prioritisation decisions and provide leadership across the wider Analysis Function. 

Co-ordination and collaboration

During the year, we have seen collaboration play a more visible role in how leadership has operated across the statistical system. This has built on established Government Statistical Service (GSS) structures and relationships that pre-date the recent leadership changes at ONS and the UK Statistics Authority. These arrangements have provided a basis for co-ordination between statistics producers, collective leadership on shared priorities and support across organisational boundaries. 

This has been evident in the more active use of existing system-wide leadership structures, including the three deputy heads of the GSS, the Chief Statisticians of the Devolved Governments, GSS committees and groups and GSS theme‑based work. These structures have provided a clearer basis for bringing producers together on issues that cut across departmental and UK-wide responsibilities. We have also seen Heads of Profession maintain a focus on shared system priorities, including delivery of the GSS vision and management of system–wide risks. The publication of the GSS and the RSS Future Statistician: vision report is another example of collaboration within the system. It sets out a trajectory for the GSS and its statisticians, grounded in the Code of Practice for Statistics. This is a positive development, given concerns OSR has raised over recent years that parts of the GSS infrastructure had weakened. 

UK-wide coordination has also continued through existing structures. The Inter‑Administration Committee (IAC), which includes the Chief Statisticians of the Devolved Governments, has provided a forum for directing cross-UK priorities, including comparability of statistics across the four nations. This forum appears to be operating with more strategic and delivery focus, which is a welcome development.  

Where arrangements have worked well, they have provided a more structured basis for coordination on shared priorities than informal or ad hoc engagements. However, this progress relies on sustained engagement and continued leadership attention. It reflects more active use of existing system infrastructure, much of which had weakened in previous years, rather than a significant increase in capacity across the statistical system.

Resourcing and prioritisation

Our regulatory work over the year highlights continued pressure on resources, with leaders increasingly having to take prioritisation decisions in response. Where resources are stretched, quality assurance, improvement activity and user engagement can become harder to sustain, increasing the risk that quality issues are not identified or addressed quickly enough.  

We have seen examples of openness from leaders about the constraints they are facing, and early engagement of users in decision making. For example, the Welsh Government consulted users on proposed changes to its portfolio of statistical outputs in response to significant resourcing pressures. We recognised this approach as a constructive response to those pressures, with users placed at the centre of decision making and a clear commitment made by Welsh Government to openness and accountability about the outcomes. Wider consultations of this kind are one way of supporting transparent prioritisation, but they are not the only appropriate approach. More targeted engagement by producer teams can also be effective where it is transparent and aligned with the Code of Practice. 

Our regulatory work has also shown the importance of clear and realistic prioritisation where delivery is under pressure. This was evident earlier in the year in relation to ONS economic statistics, where lack of clarity on priorities impacted delivery and quality. Since then, we have also seen a clearer shift away from attempts to maintain all statistical outputs at any cost. This is reflected in ONS’s more explicit approach to prioritisation set out in its tiering model, which is based on the expected impact of statistical outputs on users and is intended to focus resources on improving the statistics that carry the greatest weight for the UK. ONS has also introduced a structured “waiting room” approach to sequencing change activity, intended to ensure that work only moves into delivery when it is ready, resourced and well defined. This gives users a clearer basis for understanding how ONS is prioritising work under pressure and supports more disciplined prioritisation and sequencing. 

In several cases, statistical leaders have taken explicit decisions to pause, change or stop outputs where quality or sustainability could not be assured, while seeking to maintain user access to information through clear communication, signposting and co-ordination with other producers of similar statistics. When producers pause, change or stop outputs, they should explain the decision clearly, engage users and consider how important evidence needs will continue to be met. Changes to established outputs should not weaken the availability of official statistics for important areas of public debate, policy and accountability. 

One example of this approach was ONS’s decision to cease publication of statistics on deaths in the care sector. ONS concluded that improving the quality of these statistics would require further methodological development, that alternative approaches could not be guaranteed to produce estimates of sufficient quality, and that available capacity did not allow this work to be prioritised. We recognised this as an appropriate decision, alongside clear communication and signposting for users to other sources of related information. Similarly, in approving NHS England’s request to discontinue accredited official statistics on public health, we noted that NHS England had consulted users, that respondents supported the proposed changes, and that arrangements were in place to ensure continued access to relevant data through partner organisations. We recognised these as proportionate decisions, supported by user engagement, clear communication and arrangements to maintain access to related information. 

Resourcing pressures remain a defining feature of the statistical system and continue to require difficult decisions about priorities. Our regulatory work shows that where these decisions are made clearly, with users engaged and trade-offs explained, they can support quality and delivery confidence. However, the absence of a clear, publicly available GSS-wide picture of resources and system capacity remains a concern. As we have previously highlighted, there is limited publicly available information on the numbers, skills and resources available across the GSS. This makes it harder to understand pressures across the GSS and to assess how far current priorities are realistic and sustainable.