Prepared by: Phyllis Macfarlane, Director BSC
Summary
The Lievesley Independent Review of UKSA had emphasised the importance of User Engagement to ensure delivery of statistics for the public good and had highlighted the manner in which some users had felt the existing engagement strategy to be unhelpful. Professor Lievesley had therefore recommended the introduction of a tri-annual Statistics Assembly to provide a more user focus to UKSA’s engagement activities.
This document provides Better Statistics’ suggestions as to the future of User Engagement, following the successful Assembly on the 22nd January and the subsequent Independent Report[1] on the Assembly. To formulate our contributions to the topics reviewed at the Assembly we had conducted a public consultation amongst our associates involving an online survey, followed by a video meeting to discuss the survey results. This had led to 8 suggestions which we put to the delivery group and it is pleasing to note that these were all considered and that the agenda was very largely driven by user preference as expressed through the Call for Contributions. It should be noted, however, that there was no user input into the decision as to when to hold the Assembly, nor as to the decision to confine it to one day. Both of which decisions may have limited its overall potential value.
Meanwhile we consider that the attention to “user preference” applied to determine the topics for discussion, was the primary reason for the success of the Assembly and Better Statistics recommends that these words should be at the heart of a new UKSA Strategy for User Engagement to be developed to address all the issues raised in the Independent Report. To this end we recommend that the NSEUAC should be reconstituted as the genuinely independent Statistics User Council identified by UNECE and EU guidance on national statistical systems and as originally proposed by the users discussing the future for User Engagement with UKSA during 2021and 2022. Such a body could then contribute directly to the new strategy, providing the public with the confidence of an independence not presently conveyed by the title “National Statistician’s Expert User Advisory Committee”.
Introduction: the purpose of this document:
The report on the Assembly prepared by NSEUAC can be summarised as the recommendation:
‘Wherever possible: Continue the dialogue’
In this document we reflect on:
From the beginning of the organisation for the Assembly, BSC was concerned that:
Users should be involved extensively in setting the Agenda for the event, that discussion should be as broad, inclusive, open, transparent and informed as possible, and should include users who are constructively critical of the statistical services performance.
We were also concerned that:
The purpose and objectives of the Assembly
The original Lievesley Report had proposed that
“To truly deliver Statistics for the Public Good, it is important that genuine user engagement is embedded across all theme areas, that it takes place throughout the life cycle of statistical outputs and is conducted constructively. Mutual respect and understanding from users, as well as producers, is needed to understand each other’s position.’
However the report also identified that
‘…the success of this engagement varies’ …’ some feedback described the recent User Engagement Strategy as ‘valuable’, but others described it as ‘unhelpful’.
These observations led to the main recommendation of the report to establish a Triennial Assembly, and it is worth repeating that recommendation in full here, with BSC’s emphasis (in bold) on what we regard as the key points:
Recommendation 1: The UK Statistics Authority should lead the establishment and delivery of a Triennial Statistical Assembly. This Assembly should involve key organisations inside and outside Government and across the four Nations, with the remit of determining the UK’s needs for statistics through a wide consultative process.
This should include the private sector, government departments, local government, academia, think tanks and media representatives.
The UKSA will then respond to this by producing a proposal for the statistical priorities for the next three years, thus identifying data gaps and ensuring that users can hold the statistical system to account on the delivery of the programme of work. It will also enable other producers of statistics to complement the work of the official statistical system and factor this work into annual budget allocation processes.
To respond to the Statistical Assembly and to supplement its findings, an annual public lecture from the Chair of the UKSA should be delivered to provide an update on the work of the statistical system and priorities for the year ahead. This should build on the OSR’s annual State of the Statistical System report. The lecture would raise the profile of the Board, further user engagement and establish the UKSA’s leadership role in the statistical space.
Better Statistics had seen rejuvenating User Engagement in the UK as a key objective of the Assembly and we believe it to have been largely successful in doing so, although the decision to proceed with it so quickly and to allow just the one day for the event had reduced the potential involvement of some groups of users. In particular BSC were disappointed by the lack of interest developed from within the UK Business Community, an important user constituency which we consider suffered from both a lack of preparation time and the decision to have a one day event. It has been argued that there could not be the expectation for people to take two or three days to attend such an event, but we feel that more careful planning would have ensured a more extensive consideration of the issues relating to business with all (or most) of those being included within one day of, say, a three day event with each of the three days offering a dominant theme that, collectively, would have ensured coverage of all, or nearly all, our National Statistics.
We provide further reflections on the Assembly below following consideration of:
Background to the Assembly: Change
When considering the form and content of the Assembly it is important to recognise the wider environment and how the pandemic and other influences have resulted in major changes with home working now dominant across wide sections of employment, as well as self-employment. Moreover, as data protection has permeated what used to be normal discourse, amplified by the growth in fraudulent activities online, by telephone and even face to face, it has become much more difficult to collect data in the traditional survey-based ways. Meanwhile, it is now recognised that there is important data available from other sources, which may be used to supplement or even replace traditional sources. Whilst new technology offers passive ways of measuring activity which can be adopted and developed to expand our understanding of attitudes and behaviour.
The government statistical services had been responding to these changes by introducing faster indices from a variety of sources and by making more use of administrative data. The Assembly then represented the opportunity to discuss these innovations with a wider group of stakeholders and to establish a new way forward. BSC therefore saw the Assembly as an opportunity to introduce other, external, producers to broaden the base of official statistics, and potentially reduce costs.
Although we believe the event to have been successful in demonstrating UKSA’s commitment to increased User Engagement, it is difficult to judge whether it was effective at generating new relationships at this early stage. Nevertheless we fully endorse the first of the high level priorities identified by the Independent Report on the Assembly:
Re-invigorate sustained and effective user engagement, in which official statistics producers take a lead in understanding the needs for statistics and curating relevant sources, to help answer the questions that the public, businesses, local government, the media and academics, as well as policy makers have about the economic, social and environmental situation. This would also help understand and increase the value of statistics.
The Format and Content of the Assembly
The format of the Assembly comprising mainly deliberative-style discussion for each selected topic, worked well. However, we would recommend some variation in style in future allowing for some sessions to be longer in consideration of the importance and /or controversy associated with the topic. We also consider that the format could vary, as appropriate to the topic, with discussion seeking more of a consensus towards a specific conclusion/recommendation. The process of debate would also be facilitated if more pre-reading would be sent out (see further below). Also, more quantitative approaches (eg in-session surveys on mobile phones?) could be used to help delegates come to agreement/consensus.
With regard to the content, the Call for Contributions (CfC) was effective and ensured that the content of the Assembly was mainly driven by Users, with input from the Delivery Group when it was felt that an important topic had not come out through the CfC’s received. However, the timescale was too short to allow preparatory discussion with users which could have improved the flow of the discussions and in future we recommend that Users should be asked to provide their reasons for adding a topic to the Agenda and that those statements should be included in briefing materials to be issued prior to the next Assembly.
The 15 sessions selected for the Agenda were all considered appropriate, though some delegates thought that the cost of living, education, defence and others might have been included (See Section 7 of the NSEUAC Report). However, these topics did not arise as significant from the CfCs which were received. Nevertheless, their exclusion reduces the value of the Assembly in helping to set UKSA’s agenda for the next 3 years as originally recommended by Professor Lievesley, and it is evident that more than one day should be allowed in future if that aspect of the Recommendation is to be achieved in future.
BSC’s contribution to the Agenda was formulated through a public consultation involving an online survey followed by a video meeting to discuss the survey results. This had led to the following 8 suggestions which we then put to the delivery group for their consideration.
| Census Future | Pre-reading | Open Data | Business Statistics |
| Quality & Methods | Labour Force Survey | Health Statistics | ONS Website Review |
It is gratifying that almost all our suggestions were included in the final Agenda, including some of the speakers we had recommended for each topic. The exception was the proposed ONS Website Review which we had suggested could be a workshop under Public Engagement and Understanding. The session on Health Statistics was also suggested as a workshop, because of the extensive nature of the topic.
Pre-reading Material
We felt strongly that as much pre-reading as possible should be sent to delegates on the basis that an ‘informed’ debate would always be more helpful and efficient for UKSA and we had also hoped for some guidance of what might be covered in each session to inform people on each of the topics selected. In the event there was not sufficient time to prepare and send out material for individual sessions, and the only pre-reading included in the Participant pack was the following description of the structure of UKSA:
Summary of the UK statistical system
While the Assembly is a focal point for richer and wider engagement, it complements the UK Statistics Authority’s range of user and stakeholder engagement mechanisms, such as our regular programme of advisory groups, panels, consultations, and forums.
The UK statistical system includes those who collect, produce, disseminate, regulate and use official statistics, alongside central bodies that set strategic direction. The following diagram summarises the UK statistical system:
A list of all official statistics producers in the UK can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website.
The National Statistician has created a set of advisory committees and panels on specific topics to provide advice and challenge. Further information about each of the advisory committees and panels can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website. In addition to the UK Statistics Authority, there are around 3,000 staff working directly on the production and dissemination of official statistics, across UK and devolved government departments.
For more information about the system, see the Office for Statistics Regulation’s Guide to the UK Statistical System and the Code of Practice for Statistics. The Office for Statistics Regulation has also published a report, the State of the Statistical System 2024, which shares their views on the performance of the statistical system and the challenges facing it, highlights areas of progress and innovation, and sets out their recommendations for advancing the system.
Further supplementary reading includes the UK Statistics Authority’s Statistics for the Public Good five-year strategy, published June 2020, and the Royal Statistical Society’s Public Statistics: a vision for meeting society’s needs for statistics in an increasingly data-rich world, published June 2024.
For information, the net budget of the UK Statistics Authority is £397m in 2024/25 and is forecast to be spent as set out in the image below.
BSC were very interested to learn that the OSR only accounted for approximately 1% of the overall budget which we consider explains a number of the concerns we have previously expressed. We were also disappointed with the organogram provided which we considered to be misleading in many details. We would hope that a considerably improved description of UKSA will be provided for any future Assembly.
The Event
The event itself was well attended both in-person and online, demonstrating the high level of interest in user engagement, and the feedback survey indicated that delegates considered it to have largely met its aims. In particular, the online attendance facilities worked as well as could have been expected, and most online attendees felt they were able to participate. For the future, different ways of online participation, such as break-out groups, should be explored.
Primarily, the Event was seen by delegates as a sign of UKSA’s intention to improve user engagement and it was characterised as a great start; but the sceptic asked “will it be followed up appropriately and sufficiently?”
Measuring Outcomes, and ‘Holding to Account’
Having held a successful Event, the next stages are of key importance. Many of the desired outcomes – the strategy, the identification of priorities and data gaps, increased user engagement, the involvement of outside bodies – are longer term measures.
To ensure that momentum is not lost BSC would like to see a full list of the achieved outcomes, how they are to be reported/measured and the timescales assumed.
One clear benefit of the Assembly had been the reversal of the intention to replace the 2031 Census with rolling population reporting based primarily on administrative data supported by special surveys. However, that user preference decision will have placed additional budgetary pressures on the organisation as well as time pressures to get the 2031 Census underway. Has the new task force yet been decided upon for the Census?
Recommendations and Follow-up
The successful delivery of the 2025 Assembly is the start of a renewed level of User Engagement. BSC are committed to supporting UKSA in its commitment to:
‘’… move into a more visible, ambitious space, primarily through establishing a Triennial Statistical Assembly which will consult widely with statistics users and producers to understand the range of views regarding the priorities and data needs for the UK.”
To that end we recommend the following developments concerning future assembly’s for UKSA’s consideration:
Recommendation 1. Allow at least 2, possibly 3 days for the Assembly in future
To achieve the full objective for the Assembly as suggested by Professor Lievesley, it is necessary that some time should be allowed for each area of our National Statistics and each day should be devoted to a different main theme, Any area where there is (apparently) little or no interest should be put into a special ’intensive care session’ where the opportunity should be given for any of those interested in the topic to explain why it should be continued. Otherwise, it should be dropped for future consideration. Future CfC’s should include suggestions for Topics to be included in this session!
Recommendation 2. Vary the format of Assembly Sessions
Adopt a more varied style of sessions in future. Some sessions could be longer, and the format could be variable dependent on the topic and the session leader. Some could be more like workshops, some more Q&A sessions, etc.
Spend more time framing the question to be addressed in each session. This would make the discussion more focussed to reach a conclusion/recommendation.
Pre-reading should be prepared and sent out for every session, to inform delegates and help focus the discussion.
Use more quantitative approaches (eg in-session surveys on mobile phones) to help delegates come to agreements/consensus.
Recommendation 3: Selection of Topics.
Although the method employed for the selection of topics for the Assembly was successful, it required a lot of time that might be more efficiently used in future. It is recommended that the Delivery Group for future Assemblies should firstly discuss the topics to be covered bearing in mind the objective to cover all topics – including any that might be considered as covering issues of no further interest. The CfC could then request details of specific questions to be addressed under each topic and ask for suggestions on speakers etc. This would make the process more manageable, by identifying and funnelling demand ahead of the CfC.
Recommendation 4: The Event
Running a series of successful mixed mode (in person and video) events places a considerable strain on the administration of the event and consideration should be given to running separate but parallel online / in person events on the same topics, subsequently co-ordinating the outcomes. Certainly, for the future, different ways of online participation, such as break-out groups, should be explored.
All sessions should be recorded and made available for public review.
Recommendation 5: Follow-up
There should be a detailed list of desired outcomes: both short and long term, and how they are to be reported/measured and timescales. This is particularly important for outcomes such as influencing the Business Plan, Strategy, Annual speech, etc.
Develop a plan to set overall targets for User Engagement which are regularly measured via quantitative surveys, if possible. Create a better measure of external involvement.
Follow up with Assembly attendees – we recommend that the list of attendees be used for consultation/surveys on the way forward
Identify more representatives of the ‘missing sectors’, particularly interested parties from business and finance need to be brought into a higher level of engagement with the Government Statistical system.
Encourage more interim events for User Communities – especially those who are less involved/engaged. eg BSC plans to hold an event on Business Statistics in the Autumn.
Encourage more specialist User forums and give more publicity/support for those that exist. Make it easier for users to contact the various advisory committees.
Conclusion
Overall, we recommend that a new UKSA Strategy for User Engagement be developed, to address all the issues raised in the Independent Review of UKSA , and by the Statistical Assembly.
A robust definition of ‘public good’ would also be helpful to all users and BSC have put forward the following definition for consideration by UKSA:
A Statistic can be claimed to satisfy the requirement for the public good as specified in the Act of 2007 if it satisfies all 3 of the following conditions:
[1] It is difficult for the public to accept that a body entitled the National Statistician’s Expert User Advisory Committees will have provided a truly independent report, although we do not doubt that, in fact, there was no direct influence exercised by any responsible executive from UKSA in the creation of the report.