Committee

• Martin Weale (Chair)
• Robert Heath (Deputy Chair)
• Ian McCafferty
• Paul Mizen
• Rebecca Riley
• Mairi Spowage
• Nick Vaughan

Apologies

• David Caplan
• Thomas Viegas

Additional attendees

• Chris Davies (ONS)
• Grant Fitzner (ONS)
• Perry Francis (Bank of England)
• Richard Heys (ONS)
• David Matthewson (ONS)
• Craig McLaren (ONS)
• Katherine Mills (ONS)
• Tom Orford (HMT)
• Rebecca Richmond (ONS)
• Cliodhna Taylor (ONS)
• James Tucker (ONS)
• Philip Wales (NISRA)

Secretariat

• Jonny Mudge
• Kate Beeslee

1. Approval of minutes from previous meeting and declarations of interest

1. The Chair welcomed the Committee. He asked members for comments and/or suggestions on the minutes of the previous meeting.
2. There were no comments or declarations of interest.

2. Overview and status of actions from last Committee meeting

1. The Committee noted the action of the previous meeting and addressed the changed agenda. This had been modified in order to provide the National Statistician with relevant information ahead of the United Nations Statistics Commission (UNSC) in March 2025. The Committee reviewed the process of drafting and submission of the SNA25 to the UNSC. The Chair noted that there was a research agenda which has been shared for global consultation and will be discussed under AOB of the meeting.

3. Advice: Deviation from International Statistical Guidance – Treatment of Non-Monetary Gold (NMG), Well-Being, Industrial Classifications

1. Richard Heys presented the paper. He noted that the paper outlined the advice provided by NSCASE and directed the Committee to paragraph 12 specifically where the decisions were listed. He noted that unit value indices (UVIs) could require more discussion as the prices and volumes handbook sat underneath the ESA model, and there was not an equivalent international manual that applied outside of Europe. The SNA referred to the general weakness of mass application of UVIs which the ONS agreed with, and the UK would look to deviate in specific cases where it was a homogenous product defined by chemical composition or similarly tight regulation of the product. He noted that the ONS was currently happy with the definition.
2. The Chair invited the Committee to discuss the decisions and assess if they wanted to revise any guidance suggested.
3. Robert Heath highlighted that UVI could not be regarded as a deviation from global standards in that the hybrid approach was considered by the CPI Manual 2020 as an acceptable method to adopt provided UVI was only applied to homogeneous products.
4. The Chair did not see a need to change the recommendation.
5. Nick Vaughan asked for confirmation that this would not be a deviation from the SNA. Richard confirmed it was not. He added that the approach suggested by NSCASE, was supported by ONS.
6. Robert reiterated his position that the exclusion of NMG transactions from the National Accounts was fundamentally flawed. He considered that the SNA was a comprehensive measure of activity in the economy and while activity might be excluded on de minimis grounds this was not the situation with NMG in the UK economy. In addition, the exclusion of NMG transactions created a conceptual imbalance between net lending/borrowing above and below the line. Richard explained that the research agenda referenced gold, and that the UK would ask for a research item on the treatment of NMG to ensure there was an internationally agreed position.
7. The Chair asked the Committee if there was anything in the new SNA in relation to crypto currencies that compelled them to change their view on NMG. Richard answered no, because as non-produced, non-financial assets, they were not given the same treatment as NMG. However, he implied there was some international inclination to review the classification of crypto assets.
8. Robert stressed his proposal to create a new financial valuables section within the capital account outside of gross capital investment, and suggested to include this in the response to the research agenda. He stated that the financial account should only include financial instruments that match “who lends” and “who borrows”, so not necessarily all financial instruments. With a financial valuables category, crypto assets without a liability could be classified as a financial instrument, so lending may be classified as interest but as there was no liability, it would not be included in the financial account. The Chair added that paper currency could also be classified as an asset without a material liability. Richard agreed with the points made and thought this discussion would be best placed in the international arena.
9. To conclude the item, Richard directed the Committee to the table on page 13-14 which summarised all the advice provided by NSCASE. The Chair asked whether the Committee would be given an update on natural capital depletion. Richard confirmed that he would work with the Secretariat to add this as a future agenda item for the Committee. He noted that the ONS were on the task team to develop the OECD handbook for the measurement of natural resources. The task team members submitted comments on the final draft a few weeks ago and the key issue related to the measurement of resource rents.

4. Advice: Deviation from International Statistical Guidance – SNA

1. Nick Vaughan and David Caplan reviewed chapters 1, 2, 14 and 18. David sent written comments on the chapters to the Committee and Secretariat.
2. Nick stated that the return to assets in non-market outputs was problematic in principle and application. The Chair raised that David made a similar point in his written comments. Mairi added that she had planned to raise this as an issue in the general government sector chapter and that there was minimal guidance on this.
3. Richard noted that this amendment would impact GDP. He listed the main GDP-impacting changes that have been discussed in the update process: data as an asset; branding assets, which was removed last spring; positive rate of return to public sector capital; and, regeneration of environmental resources. He stated, as regeneration had now been reconsidered as ‘negative depletion’ it would only apply to NDP, rather than GDP, so only data as an asset and rate of return to public sector capital would affect GDP figures. From a user perspective, he saw the value in better understanding how public sector capital was contributing to public services, which was why the change was proposed for inclusion in the SNA. Nick stressed that he believed it was wrong in principle and would be extremely problematic in practice. Richard added it may be necessary to return to NSCASE when the impact on international comparability was clearer.
4. The Chair concluded that the Committee were not recommending a deviation at this point but asked the ONS to keep them updated as the issue progressed.
5. Mairi added that there were likely to be significant implementation challenges. Richard answered that it would depend on the final version of the SNA and whether there was supporting guidance with more information. Nick restated his concern and argued that revising the measurement of GDP and GNI to a measure that included an imputed monetary return to assets in non-market outputs could present additional challenges with its use in fiscal and monetary policy.
6. Robert and Paul Mizen reviewed chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, and 19.
7. Paul highlighted that the wording within the guidance on chapter 6 changed from ‘should have’ to ‘should preferably’ which weakened the guidance. He acknowledged this was a drafting point that was unlikely to be changed. He noted discussion on the use of the establishments that preferred to compile industrial statistics, and that the manual recognised there was likely to be divergent practice across countries. He suggested that the ONS should consider how much the UK currently deviated from the SNA recommended practice and that they could consider this for the research agenda.
8. Nick raised a point in chapter 1 that referred to how the set of articulated accounts demonstrated how incomes were used by households, government units, the central bank and NPISH. This led to discussion around whether the SNA implied that the central bank should be remain classified as a financial corporation or be classified as part of central government. The Chair argued that it should be part of central government as it participated in public consumption unlike financial corporations and therefore suggested that it was added to the research agenda for further work.
9. Richard noted that item 7 of the research agenda reflected this discussion.
10. Paul directed the Committee to Chapter 15 on Supply-Use-Tables (SUTs). He emphasised the importance of international comparability and noted that the UK may want to stay informed on this area to ensure comparability. He believed this would mainly affect digitalisation, globalisation, climate change and productivity.
11. Paul was pleased to see the use of assets by households for different purposes included in the chapter to account for companies such as Uber and Airbnb, as well as to account for people who used capital at home.
12. Paul noted that the chapter included discussion, but minimal advice, on the use of appropriate deflators for SUTs and discussed the pros and cons of using PPI and CPI, but favoured PPI. He suggested that further work may be necessary to assess which was the most appropriate deflator and that NSCASE could provide advice on the quality of price indices that were available.
13. The Chair noted that the Economics Expert Working Group (EEWG) engaged in thorough consultation with ONS on the use of PPI and CPI and he expected that the ONS would maintain its use of CPI for deflating consumption. Paul questioned whether the ONS would be deviating from the SNA by using CPI, but acknowledged use of PPI was ‘preferable’ and not prescribed. The Committee agreed that it would not count as a deviation.
14. Craig McLaren noted that the ONS used various price indices as part of the double deflation, and these were reviewed regularly. He offered to provide a readout to a future Committee meeting.
15. The Chair asked that the ONS reviewed whether this would be a deviation from the SNA but agreed that the ONS continued to use CPI.
16. Mairi raised that asymmetries already caused international incomparability in SUTs.
17. Paul moved to Chapter 19; he was pleased to see reference to natural capital and the attempt to include environment in the national accounts. On the quadruple entry bookkeeping, he stated that where full consistency could not be achieved, the UK should prioritise the horizontal double entry principle over the vertical entry vertical principle. He recognised that this could cause discrepancies and said the UK should keep an eye on this and recognise that decisions made over whether to prioritize horizontal or vertical principles could lead to inconsistencies and these would need to be explained.
18. Robert introduced Chapter 3 and questioned some of the changes in terminology, particularly from “resources” and “use” – essentially what economic activity was about, to “revenue” and “expenditure” – essentially financial terms. This was echoed by other members of the Committee. Richard noted that a change in terminology should be designed to make it easier for users to interpret the accounts but there was a need to ensure it also benefitted more sophisticated users. Craig noted that the ONS would start to implement the new terminology in its communications and publications to make them more accessible.
19. On Chapter 4, Robert noted the concerns raised over the asset boundary and the production boundary by Sweden and independent responders, particularly with regard to renewable energy and fishing. If household own-account production of electricity and water heating (7.27) was within the production boundary, then presumably the solar panels and heat pumps used for this production would be considered as fixed capital investment rather than as consumer durables. He asked if the ONS would be able to capture that activity.
20. Richard stated that on green assets, the concept of the asset being under-management was proposed for revision and accessibility being given more consideration. For example, he noted that if an oil reserve was too far offshore to be effectively mined then historically it would not have been considered an asset, but the proposal was that all such reserves would be included, but with the less accessible being given lower valuations. He observed that the SNA revision sought to better articulate the natural resources already within it, not widen the scope. He stated that SEEA covered some elements that were not included in the SNA.
21. Robert sought clarification that the ONS would not seek to deviate from the SNA with regard to ownership of natural resources, particularly fishing, and whether the guidance was sufficient. Richard confirmed no deviation was being sought, but that supporting guidance was still under development and the UK had raised issues with the methods being proposed.
22. Robert noted he had also planned to raise other issues in the chapter such as marketing assets and human capital but was pleased to see these in the research agenda.
23. On Chapter 5, Robert agreed with Spain’s concern over real estate investment trusts being classified as non-financial corporations. He noted this item was included in point 24 of the research agenda.
24. Ian McCafferty and Mairi reviewed chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16.
25. On Chapter 7, Mairi noted that her comments echoed much of what the Committee had already discussed, for example, she felt examples were not detailed enough and this was reflected in significant questions from countries. She also raised the exclusion of city parks. Richard referred to an historic preference that did not treat heritage or cultural capital items differently and stated their value was only equal to the value of replacement as it would be impossible to value the cultural aspect of a landmark. She questioned whether the final draft would be edited to reflect these comments and how far other countries would implement to the letter.
26. She questioned whether the issue of non-market output would be removed given the large amount of country dissatisfaction in the consultation. She suggested this was a potential area for deviation.
27. She informed the Committee that Eurostat provided significant comments on chapters 8 and 9. She questioned how far the SNA would contradict current ONS practice on the compilation of its general government account or against other international statistical manuals in general.
28. She noted that Eurostat also flagged where the SNA inappropriately used GFSM terminology. She asked what guidance the UK would use outside of the EU to compile its general government sector finances. Richard observed that Europe had wanted the SNA to align closely to its government financial descriptors to ease the challenge of producing ESA to reduce risk of deviation in this area. He suggested that Eurostat could be trying to close the gap to resolve the potential risk of deviation. Mairi added that Eurostat would produce more guidance alongside ESA for countries.
29. The Chair noted paragraph 8.172 raised payments to households for giving access to their data. He asked if they would be imputed payments or payments in kind. Richard answered that the aim was to cover both actual payments and impute the value exchanged via a barter where households exchanged data access for provision of digital services or content. He said there were some instances where there was direct purchasing of data, so he thought it was designed to cover both. The Chair assumed that working out the imputation would not be a priority for ONS. Richard noted that Craig managed a team that looked at how to generate this valuation and also referred to work from Japan, Canada and the US in this area that the ONS could learn from.
30. Nick asked if the ONS would be seeking to deviate from the SNA in this regard. Richard clarified that the ONS was well placed to produce the statistics in line with SNA guidance and saw no reason to seek a deviation in this regard.
31. Robert stated that if heat pumps and solar panels were classified as production then it could impact the investment, noting that there would be investment expenditure by households and could also affect price indices. He asked what was covered by the Consumer Price Index. Richard agreed it had a significant impact and stressed that the definition of what was in or out of the production boundary was important. He noted they would assess the consistency of guidance on this issue.
32. Mairi stated she did not identify any potential risks to deviate in chapters 10 and 16.
33. The Chair and Rebecca Riley reviewed chapters 11, 12, 13, 17 and 20.
34. On Chapter 11, Rebecca referred to the detailed comments from Eurostat and OECD around the classification of natural resources. She noted the discontent was similar to other chapters the Committee had discussed and that there was substantial disagreement and room for interpretation within the manual. She suggested that the UK kept an eye on the developments and supported the ECB’s comment to monitor how the classification of crypto developed. She stated there was contention around the new areas introduced to the SNA. She highlighted the way software and databases were used together, she hoped that the final draft would clarify how to deal with those types of assets.
35. The Chair highlighted paragraph 11.15 which stated that valuables were produced assets of considerable value that were held as stores of value over time. The Chair argued that they also generated consumption services.
36. Richard noted this was part of a discussion around what valuables were for, and if they were not for production then he questioned how the purpose would be classified.
37. Nick asked how valuables should be treated. Richard referred to Robert’s suggestion to introduce a financial valuables section to the capital accounts. He suggested if they served as a store of value they would be classified as a non-produced non-financial asset in the capital account.
38. Richard noted that valuables that were an input into production (electronics, dental, jewellery etc) should already be counted as inventory. For example, NMG which had been used for industrial purposes should be treated as inventory, not a valuable, but the international community did not adhere to this, and volumes were low and hence it was not pragmatic to differentiate valuables from industrial holdings.
39. The Chair noted the classification of radio spectrum as a national asset but highlighted that it was included on the research agenda. Richard added that the ONS raised radio spectrum a few years ago but it did not get any traction. The Chair proposed this should be an immediate deviation and asked if the Committee disagreed with this. Nick agreed it was an unusual item. Robert highlighted that a deviation could affect the current balance of the government. Richard clarified that the UK treated this in line with ESA and if the UK deviated, it was necessary to understand where international practice was going. He believed it was too early to make a decision without further research. The Chair agreed with Richard’s proposal.
40. On Chapter 12, the Chair referred to unallocated gold, crypto and non-monetary gold and referred to the Committee’s earlier discussion on those topics. He noted the issue of symmetry between emissions and extraction may become more prominent as part of intended research on the atmosphere. He believed that extraction and emission were two sides of the same coin.
41. Cliodhna noted that the ONS wanted to contribute to this research as part of ongoing experimental work on the inclusive wealth and income accounts.
42. On Chapter 13, the Chair raised that land degradation was not treated as depletion and research was also proposed on that. The Chair believed it should be treated as depletion and this was flagged during the global consultation.
43. The Chair did not identify any areas for deviation in chapters 17 or 20. Rebecca questioned whether the ONS would want to adhere to the SNA guidance on geometric depreciation but noted that this was not a suggestion to deviate at this time.
44. Richard noted there was a desire to homogenise depreciation rates because geometric depreciation had attractive mathematical properties, but the ONS had built a system capability to cope with different functional forms. Rebecca repeated that this would not be a deviation. Richard agreed and assured the Committee that they would continue to use the discretion in this regard that was permitted in the SNA.
45. Robert added that when considering the research agenda, the UK should be aware of a paper by Chris Wright and Stuart Brown prepared for the 2008 SNA on allocated and unallocated gold.

Action:

Chapters 14 and 18 to be brought to April meeting.

Action:

ONS to review whether use of CPI in SUTs is a deviation from SNA.

5. Advice: SNA Chapter 27: Contracts, Leases, Licences and Permits

1. Robert Heath and Paul Mizen led the discussion on this chapter.
2. The Chair invited the Chris Davies to present on SNA Chapter 27.
3. Chris highlighted the main updates were the operating of financial leases, mineral energy and timber resources, the measurement of fish activity and permission to use the environment as a sink. The main comments ONS noted from the international community were from; Eurostat and European Central Bank (ECB).
4. Robert addressed how the UK may want to deviate from the SNA25. Robert initially highlighted tradable emission permits, which has previously been discussed by the Committee to be a non-financial non-produced asset. Additionally, Robert mentioned that the SNA guidance to record tradable emission permits at issue value was inconsistent with the SNA market value principle. Robert confirmed his view that surrendering a permit was not a transaction and that selling a marketable asset should not lead to an increase in debt of the seller. Robert added that on this issue the UK could deviate from the SNA.
5. Robert commented on gold loans and highlighted that the logic of Chapter 27 paragraph 5, operational leases involve produced non-financial assets, was that one would treat gold loans as an operational lease and the income earned as rental, a service. This approach differed from treating income from gold loans as interest by convention as noted in Chapter 8.121. Regarding financial leases, Robert recommended that the UK should follow the conceptual approach set out, rather than the practical approach, in the SNA 27.12.
6. Robert referred the Committee to Chapter 27 paragraphs 53-60 that discussed the sharing of assets approach. He noted its complexity in dividing an asset depending on the relative economic claim on that asset.
7. Katherine Mills agreed that the UK’s preference, expressed during the consultation, was to provide emission permits as non-financial non-produced assets. The ONS could decide to deviate; however, it was not currently a priority for action to be taken.
8. The Chair asked for action on this topic to be brought to the committee ahead of implementation and to note what an implementation timetable looked like. The Chair added that this was not only important in the national accounts but also held implications for government finance.
9. Tom Orford added that this work would also need to be considered for the update of the GFSM14.
10. Cliodhna added that, more broadly, the ONS may be required to have a substantial research period to address implementation of the SNA and would support NSCASE guidance on theoretical implementation.
11. Katherine agreed that having advice regarding conceptual implementation of splitting assets would be appropriate. Although, she added that in the specific instance of the treatment of emissions permits it was not strictly necessary and recommended to pause and await the conclusion of the GFSM manual. Tom agreed with Katherine’s approach.
12. The Chair would like to have a fuller discussion in April as it would offer further reason for deviation.

Action:

Robert Heath to share his paper on emission permits to the committee.

6. Advice: SNA Chapter 30: General Government and the Public Sector

1. Mairi Spowage and Ian McCafferty led the discussion on this chapter.
2. Ian noted that he had reservations but added the ONS had few issues with the chapter. He mentioned there was challenge in some of the definitions in consumer prices, specifically and further concern in the treatment of NPIs because of the definitions offered.
3. Ian concluded that he would not recommend that the ONS deviated but the definitions could be better explained, specifically the treatment of the broader public sector that was market facing.
4. In response, Cliodhna explained that the SNA08 held the same definitions as those in SNA08 and noted that a lot of countries followed the to determine whether a unit was a market producer or not. However, she reflected that clear definitions would benefit the compiler.
5. Ian agreed in theory that the fifty percent rule made sense but it was not always the measure on cost.
6. Mairi noted that different countries approached this in different ways depending on the sector. She recognised that the ONS used this guidance to compile understanding of the public sector boundary.
7. Mairi asked as statistical manuals were updated would NSCASE be used by ONS to address how the UK defined the public sector and the definition of general government.
8. The Chair mentioned that the primary activity of NSCASE would be to advise the National Statistician on such matters. The Chair asked Ian and Mairi whether there were any instances in Chapter 25 where definitions of the public sector were inappropriate.
9. Mairi and Ian did not believe this was the case.
10. Robert added to the discussion noting that compilers had asked for clear guidance on how to determine if a producer sells goods and services at economic significant-prices in order to make a judgement about market producers. SNA advised that the value of goods and services sold should cover at least half of production costs over a multi-year period, hence the compromise was fifty percent. However, Robert also noted that it was not clear on whether this guidance could be applied to classify financial public corporations.
11. Katherine explained that the ONS currently used the supplementary guidance from the Manual on Government Debt and Deficit (MGGD) and noted this was recommended by the Committee when the 2022 edition was published. She added that the SNA had used this broad framework, but it did not provide the detailed guidance required for the government sector. Katherine noted that she understood the review of the Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM) would consider the boundary between general government and public corporations, which would reopen the discussion on economically significant prices. She concluded by noting that the chapter may apparently offer contradictory advice because it provided both theoretical definitions and practical guidance for their application. Furthermore, in future, the ONS could ask the Committee for advice on which manual to use.
12. Tom agreed with Katherine’s comments and highlighted that the GFSM14 was not as detailed as the MGDD. However, he pointed out that the update of the GFSM could take the definition into account and could provide more robust guidance for implementation. He added that the new GFSM was due to be updated.

7. Advice: SNA Chapter 32: Households

1. Nick Vaughan led the discussion on this chapter.
2. Chris introduced the chapter. He outlined significant updates included unpaid household service work and income and wealth. The ONS were generally satisfied with the updates. Some global comments advocated the promotion of automatic accounts for unpaid household work, the inclusion of other household groups and the use of sub-sectoring for the household sector.
3. Nick did not think there would be any obvious placed to deviate but highlighted a few general comments. He identified concerns on admin data and was surprised the chapter did not include more analysis of care outside of childcare. He thought the discussion of distributional data was good but noted that there was inconsistency between chapter 32, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 in how distribution’s importance was stated. Nick added the chapter explained that distribution was important but without a diminishing marginal utility it was impossible to quantify it.
4. The Chair agreed with Nick’s points on distribution and believed the chapter did not achieve everything it intended. He echoed that a utility function was necessary. He believed the chapter would benefit from suggestions for ways to amalgamate data that reflected the income or consumption distribution.
5. Richard stated there was compilation guidance around how to compile household unpaid work accounts and the SNA chapter served to signpost compilers to other guidance to keep the chapter concise. As a general comment on well-being, he agreed that the manual was not reflective of the latest developments in the field and did not represent NSI’s most recent work. Cliodhna added that the SNA did not tackle well-being issues in a holistic way so did not serve as a unifying framework for complex issues as it could have. She noted that ONS would still plan to bring an alternative framework for economic welfare and wellbeing to NSCASE. This included distribution of household income and inclusive income.
6. Robert highlighted a new OECD expert group on distributional household wealth and referred to the DGI-3, which included two recommendations on distributional income. He noted that the UK risked falling behind countries such as the USA, Canada, France, and Japan.
7. David Matthewson stated that he was the UK representative for the international distributional household groups. He confirmed that an OECD handbook was being developed and acknowledged the challenge of fitting distributional measures into a national accounts framework. He noted that the information in the chapter was not surprising and the ONS were involved in the expert groups since the outset. He stated that the UK was further behind countries on wealth, than on income and expenditure but were fully committed to implementing the SNA and accompanying guidance.
8. The Chair added that the Blue Book used to publish distributional household data and was pleased to see distribution making a comeback.

8. Advice: SNA Chapter 28: Non-financial corporations

1. The Chair and Rebecca Riley led the discussion on this chapter.
2. The Chair invited Chris to introduce the chapter.
3. Chris stated that the ONS was broadly satisfied with the chapter. Other NSIs commented that the SNA required further information to help users understand the relationship between national accounts and IRFS. Some global comments also questioned whether the treatment of operating leases was correct.
4. Rebecca did not identify an obvious reason to deviate. Since the 2008SNA, the chapter asked for more detail around the structure of multi-national enterprises (MNEs) and global corporations and cross-references to other chapters which included more detail. She agreed with the concepts outlined in the chapter but, having considered previous discussions around factory-less goods producers, and how to record statistical units and the implication for trade statistics, she asked if it was realistic to expect it.
5. Cliodhna noted that the content on MNEs came from the workstream on globalisation, which the UK were actively involved.
6. The Chair agreed there was no clear guidance on the management of globalisation issues or international transactions. He felt the chapter could have been more concise to better explain the issues in scope. He observed that the SNA did not ask for country breakdowns of foreign direct investment (FDI) but the chapter suggested this would be helpful.
7. Richard noted there was a need to remain aligned with IRFS. IRFS, to his understanding had reviewed the distinction between operating leases or as finance leases, which was fundamental to ensuring that the SNA proposed guidance was compatible with future business data.
8. Paul observed that the chapter contradicted chapter 27.
9. Nick noted this was previously an issue for public sector finances (PSF), he asked for clarity of whether IRFS would no longer be distinguishing between the two types of leases. Richard answered that some spheres identified IRFS as making the distinction and in others it did not. Nick stated that could have a large impact on PSF.
10. The Chair added that the IRFS tables in the chapter made a distinction but thought they would be better placed within the SNA as an annex, which covered their relationship with business accounting systems.
11. Nick asked when the Committee would review SNA Chapter 29: financial corporations. The Secretariat confirmed that this was discussed as a substantial item in the July 2024 meeting. The Chair suggested it could be useful for the Committee to review high priority chapters and consider the international comments and previous discussion on the later chapters in the same way chapters 1-20 were assessed.
12. Robert added that there was no change in the subsectors of the financial sector between the 2008 and 2025 SNA. He also raised that the monetary and financial statistics manual would be renewed shortly and would release discussion papers for global consultation.

Action:

Secretariat to add SNA Chapter 29 to the April meeting.

9. Post 2025 SNA/BPM7 Research Agenda

1. Richard explained that following the conclusion of the SNA25, the SNA Secretariat have commissioned a post 2025 SNA/BPM research agenda. Richard noted that there were three areas to consider: Firstly, the UN have highlighted “megatrends”, where statistics would be impacted by social and environmental themes and what this would mean for future revisions; Secondly, the ONS should highlight what the overarching themes could be, and Richard noted that the treatment of capital was one of them; Thirdly, the research agenda involved fine detailing of the topics and Richard noted that this would not be the most inclusive direction for the international community.
2. Richard continued and mentioned some of the specific items that would be a priority such as; bringing together administrative data which were collected on a legal unit basis rather than a statistical unit basis; the treatment of rent given regeneration and negative depletion; the definition around real income; treatment of gold and crypto-currencies; valuation of unlisted equity; and finally the definition of land and how National Accounts captured the atmosphere.
3. The Chair asked the committee to raise certain issues that they believed should be considered as priority items and whether items needed to be added.
4. Paul highlighted whether there were items that were not necessary for a post-2025 agenda and specifically items that were not of a priority for the UK.
5. Richard responded mentioning that this issue was still under consideration across ONS and that more research was required.
6. Richard continued that the UNSC in March would be a significantly important session. He explained that over the course of the whole session, fundamental decisions would be made on economic, environmental and social statistics for the foreseeable future alongside the unifying framework.
7. Robert referred to the research agenda and noted that the ONS needed to determine what the priorities were. He also addressed what the process would be when providing consolidated UK comment; how does the ONS ensure it was influencing the international community. He asked how the committee would be involved in that process.
8. Nick agreed with Robert. He drew attention to how the development of the SNA would support the needs of developing nations and how the international community would ensure the sequencing of feasibility of National Accounts. He highlighted that the UNSC had a substantial agenda and raised concerns as to how this would be funded and if it could be funded.
9. Rebecca asked if there were differences between the last research agenda consultation and how much of the agenda fed through into change.
10. Richard explained that the approach was similar but was unaware of future process.
11. Robert added that there was a similar process on the last BPM research agenda. He believed that the International Statistics Manual Committee (ISMC) that was being proposed would be a more active body to ensure priorities were reviewed and implemented. He also added that there was uncertainty on how the resources for the work would be funded and how research would be allocated.
12. The Chair added that the document should treated as an opportunity to add items and then as an opportunity to expand the scope on areas that were of importance to the UK.
13. Richard agreed, the ONS would consolidate its response and submit accordingly.
14. Nick recognised the need for focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and if this would cause consequences to the national accounts and capitalisation of the intellectual property that accrued the value added. He asked how AI would be classified and whether this would still be the case over the coming period.
15. Richard recognised the concern and explained that the 2025 consultation process attempted to address this under the digitalisation chapter. However, he was unaware if this would still be the case in the future, but it was currently classified as Software.
16. Rebecca remarked that NSCASE should be aware of discussions and outcomes of IMSC to help the Committee provide advice to ONS.

Action:

Secretariat to summarise where the Committee propose potential deviation from the SNA.

10. NSCASE Forward Workplan

1. The Chair noted that the forward workplan was included in the meeting pack but due to continued uncertainty over the future of the Committee, meetings beyond April had not been planned.

11. Any other business

1. James Tucker introduced himself as the deputy director for International. He provided the Committee with an update on the future of NSCASE. He informed the Committee that business planning was still ongoing and there was a lot of uncertainty about the funds for NSCASE over the next 3 years. He reassured the Committee that the ONS would discuss with the Chair as soon as possible and provide an update to the wider Committee.
2. Paul asked when ONS would confirm this. James informed the Committee that the next step was to submit a bid for the multi-year spending review and subsequently there would be a round of business planning.
3. The Chair noted that it seemed impossible to plan a July meeting at this point as Committee members’ terms ended after April.
4. The Chair offered congratulations to Mairi who had been appointed to the UK board and would be stepping down as a member of NSCASE immediately. The Chair thanked Mairi for all her work. She expressed frustration that the ONS had not prioritised the costing for NSCASE based on the value they provided.
5. Robert asked that ONS circulated their response to the research agenda consultation to the Committee. He also suggested that GFSM be discussed at the April meeting.
6. The Chair also thanked Nikki Shearman for all her work on the Committee and wished her luck in her new role.
7. The Chair ended the meeting.