Latest news with #UKStatisticsAuthority
Bloomberg
6 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
UK Considers Forcing Households to Fill Out Key Economic Surveys
UK officials are probing the legal and practical implications of forcing households to fill out key economic surveys after a collapse in responses left the Bank of England in the dark over jobs data crucial to its interest-rate decisions. The UK Statistics Authority is carrying out detailed work on whether Britain can feasibly shift to a mandatory labor market survey after a review recommended exploring the option last year, a spokesperson told Bloomberg News.
Bloomberg
6 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
UK Probes Feasibility of Forcing Public to Complete Labor Survey
UK officials are probing the legal and practical implications of forcing households to fill out key economic surveys after a collapse in responses left the Bank of England in the dark over jobs data crucial to its interest-rate decisions. The UK Statistics Authority is carrying out detailed work on whether Britain can feasibly shift to a mandatory labor market survey after a review recommended exploring the option last year, a spokesperson told Bloomberg News.
Telegraph
23-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
‘Lying' Starmer reported to watchdog over true cost of Chagos deal
The official statistics watchdog has been asked to investigate Sir Keir Starmer's claims about the cost of giving away the Chagos Islands. The Prime Minister was accused of 'lying to the public' on Thursday as he signed an agreement to give the Indian Ocean islands to Mauritius and rent back a key military base. He claimed the deal would cost £101 million annually, amounting to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, the true cost is likely to exceed £30 billion in cash terms because of rising inflation and additional schemes to fund development projects in Mauritius. The Tories have now written to Sir Robert Chote, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, asking him to examine the numbers cited by the Prime Minister. In the letter, James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused Sir Keir of 'misuse of statistics'. As the statistics watchdog, Sir Robert can rebuke ministers in a letter if he believes they have misled the public. The criticism can be highly embarrassing for ministers, but he has no further powers. In his letter, Mr Cartlidge said Sir Keir was guilty of a 'statistical sleight of hand' and may have breached the code of practice on statistics. 'Yesterday, when asked about the cost of the deal, the Prime Minister claimed it would be £3.4 billion, even after accounting for inflation,' he said. 'This figure is inaccurate. Independent analysis suggests that, once a conservative rate of inflation is accounted for, the true cost of the deal is likely to be in excess of £30 billion. 'That's a difference of £27 billion – a substantial amount that could mislead the public about the real financial cost.' Britain has agreed to pay to rent the Diego Garcia military base for the next 99 years, and contribute more than £1 billion in development funding. Sir Keir said on Thursday that the average annual cost of the deal would be £101 million. This figure over 99 years would equate to £10 billion – but the Prime Minister claimed that the total 'net cost' over a century would be £3.4 billion. This is because the Government has performed calculations on the payments that factor in 'the value society attaches to present as opposed to future consumption' and an estimated rate of inflation over time. This is called the 'social time preference rate'. Analysis by The Telegraph shows the cash-terms cost is likely to be around £30 billion, including a century of lease payments, most of which will be increased in line with inflation, plus two schemes to support native people of the Chagos Islands and pay for infrastructure in Mauritius. In his letter, Mr Cartlidge wrote: 'I understand the Government has used the social time preference rate (STPR) to calculate the figure used by the Prime Minister. The figure is therefore a representation of 'social time preference', not a representation of the direct cost to the taxpayer. However, the Prime Minister stated that this is the 'net cost'. 'The Prime Minister has therefore misrepresented the figure by stating that it is a net cost when in reality it is a figure for the social time preference. 'Such discounting in the public sector is intended to allow the costs and benefits of different policies with varying time spans to be compared on a common basis. 'But in this case, it is being used as a statistical sleight of hand to hide the true cost to taxpayers of this surrender deal and appears to be a breach in the code of practice on statistics which states that 'statistics, data and explanatory material should be presented impartially and objectively'.' He also said Sir Keir should have published the source statistics. 'The Government's failure to publish the statistical methodology therefore appears to be in breach of the code,' he said. 'As the UK Statistics Authority, your role is to promote transparency and accuracy in the use of public data. 'I therefore ask you to investigate whether the Prime Minister's figure follows the code of practice on statistics to make sure that public confidence in public statistics is upheld.' On Thursday, both Conservatives and Reform UK accused Sir Keir of misleading the public. Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Labour are lying to British taxpayers with their made-up numbers and dodgy accounting, and the true reality of these costs is frightening for all to see. 'We are now bound by treaty to both pay for the indignity of the surrender, and to line Mauritius's own coffers – and the true cost of this 'surrender tax' to the British public now seems set to top an eyewatering £30 billion.' On Friday, Penny Mordaunt, the former defence secretary, said the deal would help China 's ambitions. 'In atoning for our colonial 'wrongs of the past' Labour have enabled China's colonial future,' she posted online. 'The Chagos Islands 'deal' does not secure the base and it will impact military operations… It restricts where we can place maritime installations such as sensors, it requires we share our defence planning with Mauritius, it raises confusion over who will manage the electromagnetic spectrum. 'In trying to resolve a minor problem in the FCDO's in-tray they have created much greater ones both the immediate and long term.' Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, said: 'This is a terrible agreement. Future operations will be in jeopardy and Mauritius will be able to interfere. A weak agreement from a weak government.' A Downing Street source said the figures had been signed off by the Government Actuary's Department. 'This deal is vital for our security and is opposed only by Russia, China, Iran and the Conservatives,' the source said.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why the UK's official statistics can no longer be trusted
If there's one thing everyone – from policy makers to politicians, strategists to bankers – can agree on, it's the importance of getting access to the right data to inform decisions. You may not always agree about those decisions, of course, but at least they're made with some degree of oversight and confidence about the workings of the economy and the country. Or, at least, they were. Last month, the independent regulatory arm of the UK Statistics Authority publicly criticised the quality of the data the Office for National Statistics (ONS) was providing, warning it of the risks of supplying poor economic statistics to decision makers. 'It is critical that ONS takes decisive action,' the report from the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) said. This came a week after the UK Statistics Authority and Cabinet Office had jointly announced an independent review of the performance and culture of the ONS, and was the latest in a long line of crises to beset Sir Ian Diamond, Britain's most senior statistician, in his role as head of the organisation. Its flagship jobs survey data had its kitemark of quality removed, while the trans question in the most recent Census was so confusing, the official estimate of the number of people in England and Wales identifying as a different gender to the one registered for them at birth was considered inaccurate and had to be revised downwards. Andrew Bailey, governor of the bank of England, told Mansion House late last year that the ONS's Labour Force Survey was a 'substantial problem' for monetary policy. So it was no surprise when Diamond resigned earlier this month, citing 'ongoing health issues'. It's not an exaggeration to suggest that what's been going on under his watch has the potential to undermine the entire way the economy is run. 'I can't tell you how vitally important collecting the right statistics is for the economy,' says Nye Cominetti, principal economist at independent think tank the Resolution Foundation. The think tank was so concerned about the quality of the Labour Force Survey, in fact, that it published its own estimates of UK employment earlier this year. 'Employment numbers tell us about the state of the economy, so having good labour market statistics is fundamental,' says Cominetti. 'And it matters for policy as well: the Bank of England look very closely at this labour market data to inform their rate-setting decisions. So they've been among the most vocal complaining about the lack of good data – in fact, like us, they've constructed their own estimates based on alternative data.' So what exactly has been going on at the ONS? How did we get to the point where the chair of the cross-party Treasury select committee, Dame Meg Hillier, had to send a letter of public admonishment to Sir Ian in March, citing troubling errors and delays that will 'widen concerns about the trustworthiness and accuracy of economic statistics available to policymakers and other users'? In 2015, there were 38,741 households surveyed in one wave, but by 2023 it was down to a meagre 24,752 (although, following criticism, it went up to 31,469 households in the most recent survey). By those measures, incredibly important jobs market figures are being judged on the responses of approximately 0.03 per cent of households in this country. Cominetti says part of the problem is a huge drop in the response rate to ONS surveys. 'To be absolutely fair, declining response rates aren't unique to the ONS,' he says. 'We're seeing national surveys around the world having these issues, and it's something to do with a modern society being less interested in filling in surveys from the government. 'But could they have undertaken measures more quickly to arrest this trend, put more resources into these frontline surveys, paid respondents more and so on? That's the main question.' It's not as if the ONS weren't aware of the problems – they just didn't do much about them. They have been planning a 'transformed labour force survey' for some time now, costing millions of pounds to develop – and even that has been beset by delays and may not be fully ready until 2027. Tellingly, its own internal review of this ongoing and extended process showed it had 'a profoundly negative impact on morale and wellbeing, which corroded relationships, undermined confidence in the vision, and affected buy-in'. And there has clearly been a cultural issue inside the ONS which meant that any concerns were either swept under the carpet or ignored in favour of other priorities. Take that addition of a gender identity question in the 2021 Census. It led the ONS to produce figures in 2023 that 0.5 per cent of the adult population in England and Wales were transgender; however, they had to roll back on that figure last September, after admitting that the question was not clear to those with a lower level of English proficiency. It required a yes/no answer to: Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? Yet several local authorities and organisations had already published dashboards, data tables or reports that mapped the trans population within their area. While the regulator couldn't find examples of this data being cited in a policy decision or resource allocation, they still criticised the ONS for their 'defensiveness' when the accuracy of the reporting was first questioned. Was this ever flagged up internally? Unsurprisingly, nobody at the ONS will speak to us on the record when we approach them, but we are pointed towards a separate OSR report on the workplace culture at the ONS – which basically says it all. 'Many staff thought there had been an erosion of quality in some areas,' it says. 'There were also calls for additional strategic focus on the quality of data inputs and to improve methodology.' Several staff also thought that while the availability of economic expertise has increased, there may have been a 'failure in some areas to increase the level of organisational curiosity, analytic oversight and challenge'. Most pressingly, some staff referred to an organisational culture that did not always promote or reward that challenge either: 'early warnings were not always appreciated or encouraged'. You can see why the regulator was concerned that the culture at the ONS left it open to accusations that it had been 'captured by interest groups' in the trans debate; even though they found no evidence of bias, the attitude of the ONS to challenge created an impression of just that to some external observers. It's not just the OSR who were concerned, the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) Union have worked with and for ONS staff for some time now. 'Our members have voiced long-standing concerns about management decisions,' says PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote, 'including around survey data, never-ending organisational change programmes, cuts to resources, uncompetitive pay, an erosion of trust, and a culture where staff feel their voices are not heard. 'ONS is full of highly qualified, passionate, hard-working staff who want to be able to constructively challenge decision makers, to be fairly paid, and have the resources they need to do their jobs. We welcomed the opportunity to engage with the Devereux Review and hope the next national statistician will bring new leadership that will work with us to address our members' concerns.' Fairly damning, then. We asked the ONS for a sit-down interview to answer some of the concerns that, well, nearly everyone has about its organisation, but a spokesperson preferred instead to send us a statement. 'We have been open about the challenges the ONS has faced in recent months and set out a renewed focus on our core economic and population statistics in our 25/26 strategic business plan,' they said. 'This work will now continue under Acting National Statistician Emma Rourke and the senior leadership team, as will our full participation in Sir Robert Devereux's review. 'We remain focused on producing the highest quality statistics for the public good and are committed to continuous improvement of our methods and approaches.' It is true that for all the outside criticism and regulatory reports highlighting concerns, there's yet to be a specific example of huge public spending wastage that can be attributed to the poor economic data supplied. The issue is more with general policy direction. 'Take the Low Pay Commission,' says the Resolution Foundation's Cominetti. 'If, from the ONS data, they think the labour market is doing really badly, then they might suggest an increase in the minimum wage to the government. 'Last year, of course, we had this big confluence of the minimum wage going up and a big increase in employer National Insurance contributions – both of which raised costs for employers hiring low earners. 'I can't speak for the government; maybe they would have wanted to pursue those policies regardless. But personally speaking, I think a clearer picture of the labour market from the ONS might have suggested that one or both of those policies should have been moderated. Or that maybe they should have looked elsewhere for its tax increases.' Does that mean the ONS' methods and approaches can even be trusted? If the Resolution Foundation and Bank of England are now producing their own figures anyway, what does that actually say about the future viability of the ONS? 'No, I do think it should be the ONS's role to do this,' says Cominetti. 'Nobody actually wants to be spending time arguing about statistics; we want to be talking about the right policy and what government should do with an accepted version of the facts. 'I'm now on a steering group which is overseeing some of the measures the ONS are putting in place to improve the Labour Force Survey, so they are now being collaborative and fairly open. They're aware of the issues.' Sir Ian Diamond's successor just needs to confront them head on, it seems. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Herald Scotland
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
'Shameless' SNP slash targets for closing the attainment gap
Officials have also confirmed that data showing whether or not the new target has been achieved will not be provided prior to the next Holyrood election. In 2015, then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon pledged to tackle the attainment gap – the difference in education outcomes between the richest and poorest pupils – as a matter of priority, insisting that she wanted to be judged on her record in this area. The following year, she promised to 'substantially eliminate' the gap, describing this as the 'defining mission' of the SNP government. In December 2017, a National Improvement Framework was published which included specific targets for closing the overall attainment gap as defined by a total of 11 metrics. This document included a foreword from First Minister John Swinney, who at that time was Education Secretary. At that point, the attainment gap in primary school literacy stood at 22 percentage points, with a target to cut this to just five percentage points by 2024/25. This would have represented a 77% reduction. The numeracy gap in 2016/17 stood at 18 percentage points (the NIF document incorrectly states 17 percentage points) and the target was also to bring this down to five percentage points – a 72% reduction – by the end of the current academic year. If achieved, the newly stated target of a 30% reduction would leave primary school attainment gaps of 15 percentage points for literacy and 13 percentage points for numeracy. According to the most recent official data, the primary school attainment gap in literacy has fallen by just 8.2% since 2016/17 and currently stands at 20.2 percentage points. For numeracy, the reduction in that time is just 0.9 percent with a current gap of 17.4 percentage points. The original set of attainment gap targets had also included interim aims for 2019/20. Although data for this year was not collected due to the impact of the pandemic, official figures show that the government was not on track to meet those goals. Asked to explain why ministers had now settled on a reduction target of just 30%, despite having previously published far more ambitious goals, a spokesperson explained that the number represents the estimated aggregation of other targets set by local authorities. They also confirmed that the data to determine whether or not the government has met its newly-stated target will not become available until December 2026, around seven months after the upcoming Holyrood election. In a further blow, the First Minister has also been rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) over claims that the attainment gap has been reduced by 60 percent since 2009/10. This figure relates only to a single measure of school leavers' destinations which was not part of the government's own definition of closing the gap within the National Improvement Framework. Sir Robert Chote, Chair of the UKSA, stated in a letter to Labour's Pam Duncan-Glancy that his organisation would expect the government to be consistent about the way in which it measures attainment gaps, and that claims of progress should 'reflect a reduction in more than one measure relating to attainment". He added: 'To maintain trust and confidence in their statements, Ministers should take care that when they claim progress of their policies it is by their own defined measures, or otherwise clearly explain the source of separate data so that it is readily accessible for policy experts and the public to understand. We have raised these matters with the First Minister's office.' The Scottish Conservatives' education spokesperson, Miles Briggs MSP, said that the government's decision to cut its own targets 'sums up the SNP's dismal record on the attainment gap.' 'They've not only failed to eradicate it – it has widened on their watch. Yet their response wasn't to tackle the issue, but to deny and deflect. 'Just last week, the UK Statistics Authority said that John Swinney was misleading the public about this, and now his government are attempting another sleight-of-hand. 'Watering down targets, in the hope that they finally might meet them, won't fool anyone. The SNP made, and broke, a promise and are now trying to rewrite history to cover up the fact that they have failed Scotland's most vulnerable students.' Scottish Liberal Democrat education spokesperson Willie Rennie MSP said: 'The SNP are shamelessly moving the goalposts because they know they have broken their decade-old promise to close the attainment gap. 'There are lots of issues that need addressed, from behaviour challenges to teachers stuck on supply lists and fundamental problems with the curriculum. But all of these have gotten worse on the SNP's watch. 'Nicola Sturgeon once said her party should be judged by its record on education. That record clearly shows the SNP have failed children across Scotland.' Scottish Labour Education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said: 'The SNP used to say closing Scotland's shameful poverty-related attainment gap was its defining mission, but it's clear this mission has been abandoned. 'The poorest children in Scotland have been let down the most by the SNP's mismanagement of Scottish schools. 'The SNP's time in government is defined by broken promises and missed targets, and this is one of their worst betrayals.' A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: 'This Government has been consistently clear we are committed to closing the poverty related attainment gap. It is encouraging to see the gap between young people from the most and least-deprived areas meeting standards in literacy is at a record low in primary schools, and the attainment gap has reached record lows between secondary pupils achieving third level in literacy and numeracy. 'The national stretch aims from 2016/17 in the National Improvement Framework (NIF) cannot be compared with the current position, as they have been superseded by local stretch aims over a three-year period of 2023/24 – 2025/26. This approach was developed with local authorities for aims to be set locally to reflect local contexts following the pandemic, recognising that education is delivered and experienced locally. 'There is of course much more to do as schools navigate the lasting impact of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis on children and young people experiencing poverty. That is why up to £200 million is being invested this year in the Scottish Attainment Challenge programme.'
