Apologies were noted from Marcus Bell. Siobhan Dickens attended as a delegate.
The minutes of the meeting of 25 March were approved. The actions were reviewed.
2. Population Statistics System and Censusupdate
The Executive Director for Population, Census and Social Statistics updated the Committee on work undertaken since the March meeting. She noted that they had successfully recruited a Population Statistics Director, and a Deputy Director for Census Policy, with start dates to be confirmed. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) were engaging with the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) following the publication of the assessment review on Mid-Year Estimates (MYEs), and discussed the next steps to respond to the requirements. The Committee heard that ONS were developing an improvement plan for MYEs, that would consult stakeholders and the Methodological Assurance Review Panel (MARP). Members noted recent publications including population projections and upcoming migration outputs.
Members heard that work had begun towards publishing an update on the progress of the Authority’s recommendations on the future of population and migration statistics in England and Wales, published in June 2025. The update would likely be published in autumn 2026. ONS would also publish quarterly updates on the progress of population statistics and the Census Programme. Members noted that the Committee should hear about the data flow aspect of the recommendation in order to demonstrate work against all three parts of the recommendation.
The Committee reviewed the delivery confidence assessment and risk update. Members heard that the status continued as amber/green, but ONS acknowledged that risks would need to continue to be managed carefully as the programme scaled up. The risk update showed the description and controls for 4 of the 17 programme risks. The following points were raised in discussion:
the risk around the budget would need to be closely monitored as future spending review bids were prepared and submitted given the pressure across government departments on budgets, and wider economic environment. The Committee would want to understand ONS’ approach and plans to mitigate the risks, and should consider a substantial item on phasing at a future meeting, at a more critical time for Census budget planning;
the programme board had agreed Level 0 milestones so could assess progress against those, which the programme was currently on track;
in January the Committee considered the timelines of decision making within the wider context of prospective government events and agreed it would be helpful to consider the risk mitigations against that. ONS would follow up with an overview of timelines and schedule an item on the research plans;
there would be a challenge around digital capability, and discussions with HM Treasury and Cabinet Office about sourcing digital resourcing were ongoing. ONS also considered the trade-off of hiring external resource to fill the gap, acknowledging increased cost, but that it protected other ONS priorities. ONS had recently published its business plan which set out a rigorous approach to prioritisation. Ash Smith offered to engage separately about how Government Digital Service (GDS) could support;
the risk update was helpful but more work was needed to score and understand the controls against the remaining programme risks in order to provide the required level of assurance for this Committee. The assessment should include actions and controls to ensure the Committee was fully sighted.
The Committee acknowledged the work done, but there was a need for a more dynamic view of the delivery confidence assessment, and further work on controls against the programme risks.
3. Devolved Governments’ Perspective
The Chief Executive of Northern Ireland Research Statistics Agency (NISRA) introduced the paper which highlighted challenges and barriers to the cohesion of the UK population statistics system. Members heard differences in methodology, capacity and access to data sharing were prominent challenges for NISRA, National Records of Scotland (NRS) and Welsh Government. The Devolved Governments (DGs) noted that due to the capacity and resource gap, it was difficult to maintain pace with ONS’ moves away from long standing methods towards different data sources, but acknowledged and appreciated their efforts in providing support and maintain open communication and collaboration with the DGs.
Members noted the differences in user needs between the nations, and also the importance of achieving meaningful coherence. Welsh Government noted their unique position and collaborative relationship with ONS on the Census, but also there remained a lack of granularity that was needed at more local Welsh levels.
The Committee discussed the paper. The following points were raised in discussion:
the DGs were likely to see changing priorities following the Senedd and Scottish Parliament elections. Scotland noted an expected focus on the distinctive needs of Scottish users; Wales noted an increased focus on poverty, and emphasised the need for data sharing from other government departments to support this;
the Inter-Administration Committee served as the key governance forum for delivering on the concordat of statistics, which set out how different parts of the UK Statistical System would work together. UK Census Committee also brought together colleagues from across the devolved governments and Government Statistical Service (GSS) to report and focus on the delivery of the census. Responsibilities for statistics in Scotland were split between NRS (Registrar General for Scotland) and Scottish Government (Chief Statistician);
the resource imbalance between the DGs and ONS was discussed at length. If ONS moved towards new methodologies, this could cause challenges for UK coherence where the DGs did not have the capacity to keep pace;
there was no legislative route for DGs to request data sharing from central government departments directly, which made the process challenging;
due to the scale and profile of the Census, it was a good opportunity to improve data sharing between central governments and DGs, and to move towards a collective UK statistical system, as aligned with the government priority to have a collaborative civil service. As the civil service became more UK wide, similar resource gaps would likely emerge so there could be an opportunity to join endeavours;
harmonisation and coherence work was very sensitive politically and would be challenging for all organisations;
secondment of staff out of and into ONS developed valuable skills for both parties; and
joint and integrated plans would be very important as the programme progressed, to ensure that resources were prioritised in the correct way, and that the DGs were supported as the programme scaled up.
ONS noted their commitment to consistent engagement and consideration of DG capacity and needs, but also acknowledged their concerns, particularly around data sharing which was also challenging for ONS. Members acknowledged the challenge around harmonisation to meet user needs in all four nations, specifically on topics of ethnicity and sex and gender identity. The development of harmonisation guidance sat within the National Statistician’s Office, separate from the Census work, and was ongoing, supported by members of the Authority Board to drive it forwards.
The Chair thanked the DGs for highlighting their concerns. The Committee discussed how this Committee and the Authority Board can support the DGs in a meaningful way, particularly through IAC and UKCC which existed to promote coherence and coordination across the administrations. They noted that the new National Statistician would be integral for supporting all four nations within a cohesive UK Statistical System, acknowledging the challenges of the respective devolved settlements and policy priorities. The Committee and the Authority Board stand ready to engage in issues as appropriate that cannot be resolved through the usual collaboration on IAC and UKCC.
4. Census Response Patterns and Wave of Contact
ONS presented an overview of the Census 2021 response patterns, wave of contact and challenges faced. They noted the success of the digital-first approach, and the follow up work done after Census Day to target groups that had not responded. They highlighted the letters sent to all households, and subsequently increasingly targeted letters for those that had not completed the questionnaire.
Members heard that the 2027 Test would test different types of training for field interviewers to support the wave of contact for 2031. It would also inform the potential approach to target students in halls of residence and members noted that ONS were approaching universities to encourage promoting the Census. The Test would also consider how to support respondents with lower English language proficiency.
The Committee noted the updated. The following points were raised in discussion:
the potential and importance of utilising digital resources for outreach, and to target outreach to specific groups, for example, students as primarily digital, and the burden this would relieve on the postal service sending letters to every household. Members discussed how to use government digital channels and existing social media, but noted the landscape could change significantly ahead of 2031, but that technology provided an opportunity to target hard to reach groups;
members were interested in ONS’ assessment of likely response in 2031, given the unique circumstance that the pandemic afforded in 2021;
ONS were also considering administrative data sources, community engagement and learning internationally to inform the wave of contact;
the Test would support different languages, but many local authority websites offered Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated translation, and ONS were exploring the possibility of using AI technology with an external partner;
external expertise within big platforms may provide valuable insights on comms messaging and marketing;
members discussed the importance of focusing on deploying budget strategically to target hard to reach, unwilling or uninterested groups, and how to effectively target resources;
Census Day benefitted from its profile, and members acknowledged the challenge of corralling and motivating participants for the Test.
The Committee thanked ONS for the update, and acknowledged the agility required to respond to the constantly changing landscape and value in consulting external expertise.
5. Office for Statistics Regulation: Regulation of the Census and Population Statistics
The Director General for Regulation provided an overview of the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) and recent regulatory work relating to the population statistics system, including having recently completed the cycle of assessments for census outputs.
As part of OSR’s assessment review of MYEs, OSR identified concerns about the quality of subnational estimates, and set four requirements for ONS to address before the next publication. OSR commended the engagement and acknowledgment of quality issues by ONS. The Committee had previously heard about the decision not to move to Admin-Based Population Estimates (ABPEs) and implications of relying on the existing methodology. In line with the earlier discussion with the devolved governments, ONS noted that not moving to ABPEs kept ONS more consistent with the DGs.
OSR were confident in the national population estimates and suggested that ONS produce supporting materials to communicate the uncertainty to users, to highlight the local authorities with increased uncertainty, and where the estimates could be relied upon. This had previously been produced for projections releases to convey to users where it was appropriate to use the data and where it was not appropriate. Members discussed the challenge to convey the nuance and continuous improvement approach.
Members questioned ONS in its confidence to meet the requirements before the next publication. The Executive Director noted that ONS were considering a request for voluntary de-accreditation as it would be a challenge to meet all the requirements by the summer. Members discussed the implications of this and road to reaccreditation, which was dependent on OSR’s workplan. The Regulation Committee would consider MYEs and implications for other statistics in June, but noted the positive and collaborative working relationship between OSR and the Population Statistics team.
OSR also acknowledged the significant progress made to migration estimates.
The Committee thanked OSR for the update and constructive feedback on ONS’ population statistics.
6. Any other business
Members referenced ongoing work related to the sex and gender identity harmonisation guidance and the expected publication of an update in the summer.
