We asked, you said, we did

Between 18 June and 10 September 2025, we engaged with users of our Price Index of Private Rents (PIPR) statistics to better understand how they are used and how well users understand the methodology used to produce the statistics.

We developed the PIPR to overcome known limitations of its previous measure of private rental sector inflation, which was unable to provide estimates of private rent levels, and change that were both comparable over time and available at low levels of geography. It’s vital that the data and statistics we provide best meet the needs of our users, and that we understand both how you use our data and how well it meets your needs.

We published our PIPR user engagement questionnaire as we wanted to hear from you to understand how you use the PIPR. Your feedback will help inform our future publication strategy and, in particular, identify where are any improved explanations, or additional analysis could be provided to better meet your user needs.   

We received 33 external responses from a variety of users. Below is a table that shows a breakdown of the type of respondents who replied to the questionnaire.

Table 1: Respondent count by sector

The users who replied to our questionnaire were in a mix of different roles ranging from researchers and economists through to service providers, analysts and interested members of the public.

The majority of users who responded have made use of the PIPR on a monthly basis, although this also ranges from daily usage through to quarterly or annual use. A small number of users are either irregular or occasional users. The vast majority (95%) of those who responded reported that PIPR meets their needs or somewhat meets their needs. More than half of those who responded agreed that PIPR meets their needs to a sufficient level of detail. However, the PIPR does not meet the needs of one user, and 13 users would prefer more detail to meet their needs, which will be covered later in this response.

There are a wide range of uses for the PIPR. Most obviously, the PIPR is used to understand and track private rental inflation of the rental stock, but also to contribute to wider economic and policy research, such as monitoring trends along with wages and housing allowances. The PIPR supports academic and policy analysis of housing inflation, such as identifying subregional trends, understanding affordability and strategic assessments of housing in the rental sector. More widely, the PIPR is used to support the uprating of rental agreements in line with the market, as a source for tenants to assess fair rental increases and as an informative source of information to contribute to presentations and reports on the private rental market.

The PIPR user engagement questionnaire was used to better understand the positive benefits of the new index along with aspects of the PIPR that some users view in a negative light. The questionnaire also provided an opportunity for users to highlight additional requirements for any further development of the PIPR. This section summarises the main findings, along with an update on work in response to these additional requirements.

Users highlighted many positive aspects of the PIPR:

• The monthly publication of both rates of inflation and rental levels.
• The granularity of rents now at a local authority level alongside regional and national estimates.
• The presentation of the PIPR data was highlighted as being clear and easy to understand. In particular, the visualisations and maps help users understand the latest trends.
• Having a comparable time series supports the understanding of changes in the private rental sector
• Users were impressed by the quality of data.

However, there were a few perceived negative aspects flagged by users. These are presented below with a response from the ONS.

Some users would prefer a longer time series for the new PIPR. Response: The PIPR series starts from January 2015, with historical estimates before this period based on our previous measure, the Index of Private Housing Rental Prices. We are unable to extend the PIPR methodology prior to January 2015 due to issues with, and the availability of source data. This is explained in more detail in section 6 of the PIPR quality and methodolgy information document. The historical series of private rents inflation data is available here: Price Index of Private Rents, UK: historical series.

One user was concerned that national and regional rents may be skewed by high rental prices. Response: the methodology used in the PIPR, in particular the hedonic modelling process, includes an outliering process to reduce this risk (where outliering is a technique that can be used to reduce the influence of atypical values). This is explained in more detail in section 6 of the PIPR quality and methodology information document.

There was a concern regarding the potential overestimation of Scottish rents in the PIPR compared to England and Wales. Response: A comparable methodology is used in the PIPR to calculate rental estimates across each country of the United Kingdom. This methodology uses the available rents data to approximate the stock of rents, regardless of differences in data collection in different parts of the UK. For England and Wales, achieved rents are collected for both new and existing tenancies, while in Northern Ireland, rents data are for newly advertised lets. Scotland rents are predominantly for advertised new lets. The PIPR statistical bulleting and accompanying material contains several caveats to make users aware of this difference in source data and potential impact. Section 10 of the monthly PIPR statistical bulletin provides more detail. In 2023, the National Statistician’s Advisory Technical Panel for Consumer Prices concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify a change to ONS’ rents methodology and instead recommended that ONS and Scottish Government work to improve Scottish Government’s rents data collection for Scotland to increase comparability across the UK.

One user highlighted a perceived lag in collating and publishing the data, with latest figures being prior to the month of publication. Similarly, another user requested to consider increasing the timeliness of compilation, so the PIPR is available sooner to reflect more recent trends. Response: The compilation and publication of the PIPR is dependent on several data sources and having sufficient time to both compile and quality assure the data. This is typical across almost all statistics. For the PIPR we usually publish within three weeks of the reference period (so August estimates published in mid-September). It would be difficult to make any significant improvements in this timeliness without reducing the quality assurance period. The PIPR is as timely as ONS’ measures of consumer price inflation statistics, which are published on the same date for the same monthly period. We are also aware of a misconception around the rental price data being used in the PIPR and whether this is smoothed using a rolling average. This is not the case, and we have published a recent blog post to better explain this.

It was noted there were difficulties in accessing the PIPR data from the ONS website. Response: ONS is currently transforming the ONS website, improving it with brand new navigation, page designs and content. Users are invited to explore the preview website.

Some users provided details in their questionnaire responses to define what additional requirements they have for the PIPR and wider private rental sector statistics. To summarise:

There were requests for more granular PIPR data, by property type and by size of property. Response: PIPR estimates are currently available by property type (for example, detached house) or bedroom category (for example, 2-bedroom property), but not by property type and bedroom category (for example, 2-bedroom detached house). Uncertainty increases as granularity increases and we have no current plans to publish at increased granularity due to the low counts of rents within such granular categories. ONS will review this possibility if the sample size substantially increases in future.

On a similar theme, some users asked if the PIPR could be extended to a more granular geographical detail (lower than local authority level and at postcode level). Response: It is not possible to publish PIPR estimates at postcode level because of too much volatility in estimates at this level.

Several users requested more detail and transparency regarding the data sources being used in the compilation of the PIPR. In particular, an assessment of how representative each data source used was requested. Response: We updated the PIPR quality and methodology information document and the PIPR quality assurance of administrative data document in March 2025 to provide users with more detailed information on data sources used in the PIPR. We also provided users with more detail on the quality and representativeness of the PIPR in section 3 of our April 2025 PIPR development plan.  

In addition to this, we have engaged with the devolved administrations and from October 2025 successfully obtained permission to publish data collection volumes by month, by property type and by country and English region. Also, the data volumes used in the PIPR regression model by month and by local authority in England and Wales and by Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA) in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These rents data volumes are available here: Price Index of Private Rents, UK: data volumes. This analysis aims to support users' understanding of the quality and representativeness of the monthly dataset used in the PIPR model.

Users have indicated there is additional detail on both rental prices and the wider private rental market they would like to see available. Some of these requests are either not possible or fall outside the immediate scope of the PIPR, but in other cases we have either already implemented improvements or are working towards meeting these requirements.

Several users would like to see upper and lower quartile rental data published. These statistics were previously published via the discontinued Private Rental Market Statistics in England release. Response: The PIPR model estimates price change for the “average” property and so cannot directly be used to produce equivalent price change for upper or lower quartile properties, which are by definition not the central “average” property. We have been working with our methodology experts to develop an alternative method, linked with the PIPR, that would be capable of measuring quartile rent prices. ONS has submitted a proposal to the cross-government Private Rental Sector Subgroup for consideration and will engage with them to determine the scope and priority of further development of this product.

Some users explained there needs to be a clearer explanation of the distinction between achieved rents, as measured by the PIPR and newly advertised rents as measured by private sector indicators. Users would also welcome an easy-to-understand description of the way prices are used in the PIPR. Response: We have made available more accessible explanations of the way rental prices are used in the PIPR through our recent blog post along with explaining the PIPR methods, strengths and limitations, aimed for non-technical user understanding; via our ‘Understanding house and rent price statistics’ webinar . Detailed information about the PIPR methodology was published on 27 October 2025 via our Price Index of Private Rents detailed methodology article.

Users also noted they would welcome more detailed breakdowns of rental inflation in the PIPR, such as by new and existing tenancies or England excluding London. Response: As previously published in our Private rental prices development plan: updated July 2025, we are expanding the PIPR system capability to produce additional aggregation levels (such as for counties and UK excluding London) and will provide users with an update via the monthly PIPR statistical bulletin. We cannot produce a PIPR breakdown by "new" and "existing" tenancies because available rents data do not include the data required, as explained in the "Coherence" subsection of Section 5: Quality characteristics of the PIPR data the Price Index of Private Rents QMI and in our ‘How we measure rental price inflation’ blog.

There were wider requests for analysis of the private rental sector. These included developing affordability measures, understanding the conditions of rental accommodation and how the PRS housing stock is evolving, better links between other statistical data such as house building, population estimates etc and analysis or different rental tenancy lengths. Response: Many of these requests fall outside of the immediate scope of the PIPR. However, the Housing Analysis team at the ONS does publish private rental affordability statistics. In addition to this, the Government Statistical Service Housing Coherence team have recently published an updated article ‘Private Rented Sector Statistics from across the UK, 2025’, which provides a summary of private rented sector statistics from across the UK to assess their comparability and limitations, and improve statistical coherence. Other government departments also publish data on the housing stock, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Live tables on dwelling stock (including vacants). 

Methodology

The PIPR user engagement questionnaire asked a specific question regarding users’ understanding of the PIPR methodology and how we can help improve the level of understanding. The vast majority of users who answered said they either had a good or basic level of understanding. Only one user answered that they didn’t understand the PIPR methodology. Some positive comments related to the suite of methodology documents available for the PIPR being well structured and at a good level of detail. The bathtub analogy used to describe the difference between the PIPR stock measure and private sector flow measures was mentioned as being particularly helpful.

There are areas where users felt the PIPR supporting methodology could be improved. These included providing a clearer explanation of the averages being used in the PIPR, providing a simpler explanation of the price data being used and how it is collected, providing more clarity on revisions and making use of more visuals and plain English to aid readability and understanding. Response: we published in-depth information about the PIPR methodology on 27 October 2025 via our Price Index of Private Rents detailed methodology article. We have published more accessible explanations of the way rental prices are used in the PIPR through our recent blog post and by explaining the PIPR methods, strengths and limitations, aimed for non-technical user understanding; via our ‘Understanding house and rent price statistics’ webinar. We also have plans to host a follow-up webinar in early 2026 to provide a more detailed overview of the methodology and data sources used in the PIPR.

Users also asked for more detail on the technical terms used in the PIPR to aid user understanding. Response: We added additional information on the PIPR’s methods in the Price Index of Private Rents QMI in March 2025 to support the understanding of the methodology being used and will aim to add a glossary of terms to this document. In addition, on 27 October 2025 we published in-depth information about the PIPR methodology via our Price Index of Private Rents detailed methodology article.

Finally, some users requested that a consistent methodology should be applied to the calculation of the PIPR for component countries of the UK. Response: The PIPR is calculated using a fully consistent methodology for all countries. The only difference between countries is the underlying rental price data being used. For England and Wales, achieved rents are collected for both new and existing tenancies, while in Northern Ireland, rents data are for newly advertised lets. Scotland rents are predominantly for advertised new lets. The PIPR material contains several caveats to make users aware of this difference in source data and potential impact.

Users may also be interested in our private rental price development plans, published in April 2025 and July 2025, which provide more details on much of the responses provided in this document.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is reviewing how it presents its annual suicide statistics to improve clarity and usefulness for users.

Currently, data is based on the year the suicide was registered, not when it occurred, which can cause confusion due to registration delays. In 2024, only 38.7% of suicides registered occurred that same year. To address this, ONS ran a user feedback survey in April 2025, proposing three options for the annual release:

Option 1: Registrations-First:

• Continued focus on registration data but with further clarification of registration delays and improved signposting to near real-time surveillance data (nRTSSS).

Option 2: Combined Approach:

• Present both registration and occurrence data equally, with commentary. Offers fuller insight but may confuse users.

Option 3: Occurrences-First:

• Focus on occurrence data. More intuitive but less timely and requires revisions.

The user feedback survey aimed to gather user preferences and suggestions for improving the annual release.

We received 93 responses to the user feedback survey, with 49% favouring the combined approach to presenting suicide statistics. Respondents included users from government bodies, mental health organisations, charities, businesses, and individuals.

We have broken down the number of responses we received by sector.

Feedback strongly supported retaining registration data whilst also incorporating occurrence data. Four key themes emerged:

1. User understanding: Users want suicide data to be clear and intuitive. Occurrence data helps identify trends, while registration data offers consistency. Both should be presented with narrative commentary and visual explanations to avoid confusion.
2. Accuracy: Registration data is complete and reliable for long-term analysis. Occurrence data better reflects real-time trends and supports suicide prevention. Users value access to both for a fuller picture.
3. Continuity and Comparability: Registration data ensures consistency with past releases and other official statistics across the UK. Occurrence data improves comparability with sources like nRTSSS. A combined approach balances both.
4. Timeliness: Registration data is published around 8 months after year-end, while occurrence data lags by 18-24 months. Users appreciate nRTSSS for near real-time insights and support signposting to it.

Respondents viewed the combined approach as the most balanced, offering clarity, transparency, and contextual depth. It supports trend identification and targeted suicide prevention interventions.

Respondents also shared feedback on what ONS should consider when implementing the improvements:

• equal prominence for both registration and occurrence data
• clear commentary and caveats for both data types
• guidance on appropriate use
• visual and narrative analysis
• modelling to estimate unregistered suicides

Following the feedback received through this engagement exercise, ONS have improved the way we present our suicide statistics in the annual release. The improvements include:

• presenting both registration and occurrence data within dedicated sections, with clear commentary
• the main points now include key figures and trends from the occurrence data
• caveats for each data type are clearly explained to aid interpretation
• a visualisation illustrating how registration delays have changed over time
• signposting to the nRTSSS data helps users access more timely regional insights
• exploring nowcasting techniques to adjust occurrence figures for unregistered suicides, aiming to improve timeliness. We aim to implement this in the 2025 release (due Autumn 2026)

This approach provides a more balanced and comprehensive view of suicide trends and supports clearer interpretation.

We would like to thank everyone who took part in this user engagement activity. The valuable feedback received has guided improvements to our annual release, and we continue to welcome user feedback.

Please see the full article, User engagement with suicide statistics: registration and occurrence data, for further information.

A change in the way that the household projections (HHPs) are used in some key policy areas prompted us to seek feedback from users on how they would use these projections in future. We also engaged with users to seek feedback on small methodological changes proposed for the next set of household projections. 

We undertook an engagement exercise on user needs from 2022-based household projections from 26 February 2025 to 7 May 2025, and held an online webinar on 30 April 2025.  

The engagement enabled us to gain valuable insights into user needs ahead of the publication of the household projections in 2025.  

We would like to thank all respondents for their valuable feedback which will continue to guide our work over the short- and long-term. Some user requests involve longer-term implementation and planning, which we may introduce in a phased approach over time, potentially as part of wider activities related to the transformation of population and migration statistics.  

The engagement exercise received 22 responses from a range of stakeholders. These consisted of:  

• 13 responses from local authorities in England  

• 7 responses from academia, charities and other research groups 

• 1 response from a government department   

• 1 response from an individual  

General 

The overall feedback on the planned use of the 2022-based HHPs for England showed that almost all respondents are supportive of the publication of HHPs given their broad application across planning and decision-making. Given the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework for England in 2024, direct use of the HHPs for policy-making and planning may be less widespread than was previously the case. The feedback demonstrated how HHPs support a wide range of uses, including but not limited to:  

• a variety of planning purposes and evaluating potential future demand on public services (including schools, public health services, fire and rescue services, public transport and local infrastructure) 

• supporting housing market and strategic housing land assessment, and expanding the evidence base for potential future housing needs 

• feeding into other government departments operational models and project streams 

• being used in producing housing led population forecasts 

Suggested changes or additions from users included but were not limited to:  

• an analytical bulletin with local authority-level insights and thematic analysis around different household types and community groups based on the urban or rural classification 

• clear messaging on the appropriate use of household projections through the bulletin and analysis of the accuracy of the previous projections, along with an article to describe changes being made to the methods and assumptions across all runs of projections 

• various articles that would expand on the quality of our underlying data and our assumption setting process, especially around the quality of our input date explicitly around headship rates derived from Census 2021.  

Concerns were expressed about the overall robustness of the 2022-based household projections outputs. Some users see these outputs as being indirectly impacted by Census 2021 being undertaken during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and considered that it was therefore not representative of the future usual resident population. 

A call for an interactive tool 

We also note user feedback on the benefits of having an interactive dashboard in which users could compare similar local authorities based on the urban or rural classification, demographic profiles, and one that presents them with historical HHPs alongside the latest proposed 2022-based HHPs. It is felt that this would allow comparisons of projections from the 2014-based HHPs (produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) to the latest available projections from ONS. 

Outputs at the sub-local authority level 

Feedback included requests for:  

• HHPs on a wider range of geographies that includes, but is not limited to, outputs at ward, district, MSOA, and constituent level – this potential granularity of our outputs might provide users with better insights on the demographic change within their areas of interest   

• regional and national comparisons to understand how their respective areas sit within the context of the regional and national demographic trends 

• HHPs produced by local authority with corresponding urban and rural classification     

Scope of variants 

Users highlighted the need for ONS to produce the high migration variant projection and the low migration variant projection. These would be particularly useful, given the extent to which international migration flows can fluctuate over time, and migration potentially prompted by geopolitics and climate change.  

Users also noted that the high and low migration options are useful, particularly as there is likely to be higher migration in the more urban areas when compared to the rural districts in the county.  

Response to the proposed age grouping change 

The majority of users welcome the proposed shifting from the current age groupings 16 to 19 and 20 to 24 to 16 to 18 and 19 to 24 respectively. The new age groupings were regarded as representative of the recent demography change in relation to headship rates, and it allows for better separation of different economic-demographic cohorts, such as higher education students.  

Some users expressed their concern on the potential difficulty in comparing 2022-based HHPs with previous historical runs of projections due to different age group breakdowns. Another user highlighted that it would bring unequal age group size as it would be the only age group that does not correspond to equal quinary categorisation. Some users highlighted the need for data on single year of age for their modelling project streams. 

Assumption setting processes 

We acknowledge that users would like to see more information around our assumption setting processes for National Population Projections (NPPs) and Subnational Population Projections (SNPPs) and how those are incorporated into HHPs. To ensure that the assumption setting process is transparent and well-understood, we plan to continue to make a summary of the National Population Projections Expert Advisory Panel meeting minutes and membership available to users on request. This user feedback highlights the need for us to continue including information on the evidence to support the assumed future levels of migration, fertility, and mortality and to provide more information on our assumption setting. In this context it is important to recall the way in which NPPs feed into subnational population projections (SNPPs) and SNPPs feed into household projections (HHPs).   

Census 2021 headship rates 

Household headship rates show the proportion of people in a demographic group based on geography, age group, sex and household type who were the household representative person (HRP). We noted the user need to see more information on the quality of our input data explicitly around headship rates derived from the Census 2021 for England and Wales. The census is widely regarded as the most robust, reliable population-level source of household information. Users can find more information about the quality information on respondent error in Census 2021 in England and Wales to help users correctly interpret the census results in Census Quality Survey for Census 2021 in England and Wales. As part of the release, we will publish detailed and updated QMI reports, including information about the strengths and limitations of our projections and their underlying data, and guidance on their appropriate use.  

Age grouping 

We value the supportive feedback on the proposed changed to the age grouping, whilst acknowledge the need to provide rationale behind it. The change, which involves shifting from the current age groupings 16 to 19 and 20 to 24 to 16 to 18 and 19 to 24, would allow us to produce more accurate calculations of dependent child ratios needed for our HHP system, and it aims to be in alignment with the census definition of a dependent child. 

Lower geography outputs 

We acknowledge that users expressed their interest in seeing HHPs broken down by geographies lower than local authority level and broken down by urban and rural classification. Unfortunately, we are unable to produce HHPs on those lower geographies due to lack of availability of granular data. We completed a suite of work to explore the plausibility and quality of the potential projections’ outputs on sub-local authority level. It highlighted a risk around uncertainty around projected figures especially in more rural areas within the same local authority.  

Uncertainty in population projections increases the further they are made into the future and particularly so for smaller geographical areas and age-sex breakdowns. We concluded that overall volatility, and diminished quality of those outputs outweighs potentially meeting users' need. We will recommend ONS 2021 rural urban classification (RUC) for their onward use of household projections. It is important to note that the 2021 RUC classification is based on the form and density of the settlements within statistical geographies. It does not classify geographies or features which may contribute to a rural or urban identity, such as landscape, economic, social, historical, or cultural characteristics 

Interactive tool 

We acknowledge users’ need for an interactive tool where they are presented with historical HHPs alongside the latest 2022-based HHPs. This would enable users to see the scale of difference between rounds of projections and subsequent estimates. Unfortunately, incorporating a fully comprehensive interactive comparative tool within our standard release is currently out of scope. However, we recognise its potential value and will explore options for future development. In the meantime, users may find that the separately published data explorer within our standard release of detailed datasets might offer some limited yet similar functionality that could help meet this need.  

In producing 2022-based HHPs, we have been balancing improvements we want to make against other priorities. Many of the other user requests involve longer-term planning and implementation which we will look to introduce over time, and we will not be able to include them in the upcoming 2022-based household projections release. Following the release of the 2022-based HHPs, we will explore the potential development of an interactive HHPs explorer, and the potential to generate an alternative projection taking account of housing demand and supply within the local authority and its surrounding area. 

We also recognise users’ needs rely on our HHPs to support their own activities, often within fixed timelines, therefore we will continue our engagement with data suppliers and our users to explore the best timing for the future releases. We plan to communicate updates through our Population Statistics newsletter, which you can subscribe to on our website. The ONS release calendar contains the latest information on population projections releases and will be updated as we work towards the next releases.  

Long-term international migration statistics (LTIM) produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) serve a wide range of users across government and beyond.

The ONS asked for your views on the opening section of the LTIM bulletin. Previously the bulletin opened with a "Main points" section but in the most recent publication we switched to using a longer "Overview" section. We wanted to know which approach is best for our users. 

We received 11 responses.

Responses were received from a range of stakeholders, mostly from academia and the government sector. Feedback was also received from those responding in a personal capacity.

The feedback has allowed us to gain a better understanding of user’s preferred structure at the start of the bulletin. It highlighted:

• The majority of respondents (55%) preferred the “Main points” approach to the first section of the report. This was because it was considered more succinct and gave a quick and clear overview of the article, without going in to too much detail.
• There was no explanation provided for those that preferred the “Overview” option or for those that had no preference to either approach.

In our latest release, Long-term international migration, provisional: year ending December 2024 we used the feedback to create a more concise first section. We continued to call the first section an “Overview”, as we aimed to create a short narrative of the key findings from the bulletin. However, we wrote in in a similar way to the previous “Main points” to ensure the points were clear and easy to get across.

We had also reflected on the writing style of past publications and removed a lot of unnecessary information from the top section.

We would like to thank everyone who took part in these user engagement activities, and provided us with valuable feedback that have, and will continue to guide improvements to our Long-term international migration bulletins.

If you have any further questions or would like to request additional information, then please email pop.info@ons.gov.uk.

As part of our ambition for admin-based population estimates (ABPEs) to become the official estimates of the population for England and Wales, we are reviewing the content we publish for population estimates.  

Currently for official population estimates we publish:  

• Statistical bulletins 

• Datasets 

• Population analysis tools 

• Methods guides 

We undertook user engagement exercises to gain a better understanding of how our content is used. Feedback from users plays an essential role in improving our statistics.  

In February 2025, we held a webinar Shaping our published content for population estimates, which you can watch our recording of. During the webinar, attendees were invited to provide feedback using a Microsoft Forms survey. The same questions were then used to gather further feedback through this ONS consultation platform. Our summary of responses combines feedback from both engagement exercises.   

Across both engagement exercises we received a total of 60 responses. Of these, 21 were from our consultation platform and 39 from our webinar.   

Responses were received from a range of stakeholders, mostly from academia and the government sector, including local government, devolved administrations and public bodies. Feedback was also received from those representing charities, businesses and those responding in a personal capacity.   

The feedback has allowed us to gain a better understanding of user needs relating to the content we publish for population estimates. It highlighted:  

• respondents analyse individual country level data more than data for the UK as a whole; only 13% of respondents analysed subnational data exclusively 

• lower tier local authorities are the most used administrative geography followed by country, upper tier local authorities, regions, UK and then England and Wales combined    

• our datasets and custom datasets on Nomis are the most frequently used resources; the statistical bulletin, analysis tool and other content covering quality and methods are used less often   

• the most used data are population estimates by age and sex, and the total population size followed by annual population change and the more detailed components of population change; median age and population density are used less frequently while cohort analyses are used the least  

• within the statistical bulletin, respondents found the main points and commentary on local population change particularly useful; commentary on national, country and regional changes were less useful 

• most respondents analyse population estimates for a single area over time, ideally using a timeseries of more than 10 years 

• comparing population change across areas at the same geographical level is important, for example comparing different local authorities; comparisons with higher-level areas such as region or country are also valuable 

• population estimates for areas smaller than local authorities and alternative geographies are important; estimates for lower layer super output areas (LSOAs) and electoral wards are most used 

• future data visualisations, which could include graphs, charts, maps and infographics should primarily focus on the total population and age-sex structure of the population including change over time; visualisations covering the components of population change are also important 

Additional feedback from free text responses included:  

• the need for consistent machine-readable data formats 

• concern regarding the increasing number of unitary authorities merging into county-level authorities and the importance of population estimates for smaller areas    

• the need for clear information on what data is available within the different published datasets 

Our mid-year admin-based population estimates (ABPEs) are produced using statistical models which build on the current cohort component methods used to produce our official population estimates for many years. ABPEs use a wide and increasing range of data sources, and methods can accommodate missingness in some input data. We asked respondents for feedback on our published content which brings together important information about the ABPEs.    

• Nearly half (45%) of all respondents have used our Mid-year admin-based population estimates for England and Wales Quality and methodology report; of these 93% reported that it met their needs. 

• Over half (60%) of all respondents have used our Understanding admin-based population estimates article; of these 89% reported that it met their needs.  

The purpose of our engagement exercise was to gain a better understanding of user needs for the content we publish on population estimates. We want to ensure our releases meet these needs effectively.  

As part of our website transformation, we will be improving the dissemination of population estimates. We want to highlight key figures and headline facts more clearly, alongside contextual summaries. The launch blog on ONS Digital explains how we will be transforming our releases. 

For our mid-2024 population estimates we will continue to provide similar published content, but plan to:  

• refine commentary in our statistical bulletin, focusing on local-level change as this has the greatest value to users 

• provide the ability to compare areas within visualisations of population estimates  

• improve signposting to supporting information on quality and methods 

We are considering adding population estimates to our explore local statistics platform. This will help users find, compare and visualise changes in the size and age-sex structure of the population over time for local authorities and higher-level areas.  

We are exploring ways to help users understand reasons for population change in local areas. We aim to provide functionality within our outputs to allow users to compare and visualise components of population change, such as births, deaths and migration for their area.  

In summer 2025 we plan to publish a combined quality and methods guide explaining how we produce the admin-based population estimates (ABPEs), their strengths and limitations and further quality information. This will replace the quality and methodology information (QMI) and provide a full account of the methods used to produce the ABPEs. The official mid-year population estimates will continue to have a separate Mid-year population estimates QMI and Population estimates for England and Wales, methods guide.  

We aim for ABPEs to become the official estimates of the population in summer 2026. Our official mid-2024 population estimates are scheduled for publication on 30 July 2025 and will continue to use our traditional methods that we have used for many years. 

We would like to thank everyone who took part in these user engagement activities and provided us with valuable feedback that will guide improvements to our population estimates publications. 

If you have any further questions or would like to request additional information, then please email pop.info@ons.gov.uk. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) runs an annual stakeholder satisfaction survey to understand how stakeholders access, use and value our statistics, analysis and services. 
 
We ran this year’s survey between January and March 2025, and promoted it to professional users and producers of statistics from a range of sectors including public, business, academic and voluntary sectors across the UK. 
 
The stakeholder satisfaction survey asked: 

• how users access and use our statistics 

• how well our statistics meet their needs 

• about awareness and use of ONS’s engagement channels such as newsletters, events and ONS Local 

• about satisfaction with key programmes including improvements to economic and population statistics, the Integrated Data Service (IDS) and the ONS Local service 

We received 155 responses, with 78% from professional sectors. The remainder were those who used statistics for personal use. The most common sectors were local government (21%) and national government departments (14%). Compared to last year, we saw a higher proportion of senior and analytical roles among respondents. 
 
The most common uses of our statistics were for: 

• informing audiences (80 respondents) 

• understanding work-related issues (73 respondents) 

• supporting policy and decision-making (67 respondents) 
   

The four most used statistical topics were population and migration; economic growth and GDP; prices and cost of living; and labour market. These most used topics align with ONS’s priority outputs. 92% of respondents said our statistics met or partially met their needs, which is up five percentage points from last year. 

Responses to the following key stakeholder sentiment questions were asked in 2023/24 and in 2024/25:  

• The ONS fulfils its mission 

• The ONS produces statistics to a high standard 

• The ONS produces statistics relevant to main issues of the day 

• The ONS is a trustworthy organisation 

• The ONS’s statistics reflect the diversity of the country 

In 2024/2025, across these five statements, there was a total 23% increase in respondents who disagreed with the statements, and a 4% increase in those who strongly disagreed. On the last measure, for example, “the ONS's statistics reflect the diversity of the country", there was a 4% decrease in those who strongly agreed or agreed, and a 6% increase in those who disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

Respondents highlighted areas for improvement, which include: 

• data accessibility and website usability 

• more granular and timely data 

• clearer communication and follow-up from consultations 

• better planning and prioritisation of data releases 

Respondents’ feedback on our engagement channels showed that webinars and feedback questionnaires were the most used and valued. Respondents also expressed a desire for more consistent and accessible engagement opportunities, as well as clear communications on the actions taken as a result of their feedback. 
 
Awareness of ONS Local rose to 39% (up 18% among professional users between this year and last), with most users accessing webinars or seeking advice. Satisfaction with the service was high, particularly among local government users – one of the main target audiences for this service. 
 
Awareness of improvements to economic and population statistics and awareness of the Integrated Data Service (IDS) also increased. While some stakeholders expressed a desire for more timely and granular data, many recognised the potential benefits of these developments to support their work. 

The insights from this year’s survey are helping us shape our stakeholder engagement strategy and inform our work across the organisation. We are: 

• feeding these findings into the development of a refreshed user engagement strategy for the ONS 

• strengthening how we coordinate engagement through ONS stakeholder leads 

• improving how we plan, coordinate and respond to consultations and user feedback 

• continuing our ambitious website transformation so it better meets users’ needs to find, understand, explore and act upon our statistics. This includes releasing website prototypes to gather user feedback on the proposed designs 

We would like to thank everyone who took part in the survey. Your feedback is vital in helping us improve our services and ensure we continue to meet the needs of our users and stakeholders. 
 
If you would like to discuss the findings or have any questions, please contact the ONS External Affairs team at: external.affairs@ons.gov.uk. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) undertook an engagement exercise to understand user needs regarding the provision of an additional international net migration estimate that excludes students.  A survey ran from 10 January 2025 to 28 February 2025. We also held online focus groups with users and topic experts. This allowed us to gather feedback on the three proposed options and to identify any user needs for this additional estimate of international net migration.  
 
International students who stay in the UK for 12 months or more meet the United Nations definition of a long-term international migrant and we therefore include them in international net migration estimates. We are aware of potential stakeholder interest in an additional estimate—based on a definition that does not include international students—and therefore sought feedback on relevant user needs. We undertook this exercise to explore options, and to see if there were any specific areas of research or policy which may benefit from an additional estimate of international net migration.  For further details, please see our full response summary document.
 
The three options were presented to respondents along with strengths and limitations of each. The options are outlined below.  

• Option 1: Maintain the current approach.  
• Option 2: Produce an additional estimate of international net migration excluding students using existing published estimates by reason for migration. 
• Option 3: Additional, alternative estimate of international net migration using visa information to exclude students. 

We appreciate the time respondents took to share their views and would like to thank them for taking part in the engagement exercise. Their feedback continues to shape our work. We will keep users informed of our plans to develop migration estimates. 

The survey received 43 responses from a range of stakeholders. These consisted of: 

• 22 responses from individuals 

• 12 responses from academia, charities, and other groups 

• 6 responses from other government departments 

• 3 responses from local authorities in England and Wales 

There was an overall preference for not introducing an additional international migration estimate. Our users raised a number of concerns, including potential for multiple estimates based on different definitions to create confusion and that any change may be perceived as a political decision that could reduce trust in official migration statistics.

While some users identified potential benefits of additional information on student migration being made available, an additional estimate of net international migration excluding students was not viewed as a user priority. However, there was support for other additional analysis being provided where possible.

Following the outcome of this stakeholder engagement a decision has been made not to publish an additional estimate of international net migration excluding students at this time. 

We will continue to develop additional analysis relating to both students and other migrant groups and review how we can make it easier for our users to understand what statistics are available.

We will also review the suggestions provided by users through this consultation exercise and look for opportunities to take them forward as part of our ongoing research and development work.

Following on from the National Statistician’s Independent Review of the Measurement of Public Services Productivity, we are looking at how the ONS’s publications on public service productivity can be more coherent. This includes how they can fit better with other productivity publications, given user interest in being able to compare with whole economy and market sector productivity.   

Between 8 January and 19 February 2025, we ran a survey to gather feedback from users on ONS’s public service productivity publications. This survey enabled us to gather insights on how the publications are used, which aspects are most important to users, and where improvements could be made.  

We received 24 responses to the survey which consisted of: 

• 12 responses from central and devolved governments 

• 4 responses from think tanks and academia 

• 2 responses from local government 

• 2 responses from arm’s length bodies and other public sector organisations 

• 1 response from an individual 

• 3 responses with no sector specified 

The respondents most commonly use ONS’s public service productivity publications for work purposes, but the publications are also used for personal use. Ways in which the publications are used include: 

• to inform policy development and analysis 

• to inform academic analysis 

• to understand broad trends and provide context to the feasibility of future productivity plans  

• to try to understand potential ways to improve productivity 

• to form a view as a taxpayer on whether public services are effective and efficient 

The survey indicated that there is generally a good level of satisfaction with the public service productivity publications, but respondents did make some suggestions as to how satisfaction could be improved.  

Most respondents were moderately to fairly confident that they understand the differences between the public service productivity publications and know which publications meet their needs. However, some respondents were somewhat unsure or very unsure about the differences between the publications and which meets their needs. 

Some respondents said they find it difficult or very difficult to find what they are looking for in the publications. Most of these reported either reading the whole article or scrolling through until they find what they are looking for. The survey also highlighted that the publications are generally easily understood, but there is scope to improve ease of understanding. 

Although more respondents were interested in overall productivity than the individual elements (inputs, output and quality adjusted output), the majority of respondents were interested in all elements of productivity. Service area breakdowns are more important to respondents than timely estimates and quality adjusted output; long term trends are the least important. 

The majority of respondents were also interested in other types of productivity, but only around half were aware of the ONS’s other productivity publications, such as Annual multi-factor productivity, market sector, UK.  Although the majority of respondents are moderately to very confident that they understand the differences between public service productivity and other productivity measures, some respondents are unsure about the differences.  

The survey has highlighted that the key areas of focus for improvement should be: 

• understanding of differences between the different public service productivity publications 

• better navigation and making it easier for people to find what they’re looking for 

• ease of understanding 

• clearer links to other ONS productivity publications 

We will use the findings from the survey to inform follow-up discussions with some users to explore the themes identified in more detail. This more in-depth engagement will enable us to identify specific improvements that can be implemented to optimise the purpose of each publication and the relationships between them, to improve the clarity of the overall narrative.  

We will also consider how work to improve the user experience on the ONS website could help to address some of the issues identified during our user engagement. We aim to implement some initial changes into our quarterly public service productivity publication in autumn 2025, with further changes made for our next annual publication in spring 2026.   

We would like to thank everyone who took part in the survey and provided us with valuable feedback that will guide improvements to the public service productivity publications.  

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) undertook a user engagement exercise to collect feedback on the redevelopment of domestic abuse statistics for the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). This took place between 3 December 2024 and 5 January 2025 and was the final part of wider engagement with stakeholders to seek views on our redevelopment proposals. A user feedback survey was published alongside Redevelopment of domestic abuse statistics: research update December 2024 which detailed our extensive analysis and trial outputs.  

This update provides information on feedback on the following.

• Content of the new domestic abuse survey questions.
• Estimates produced from the new questions.
• Methodology used to produce the estimates.
• Supporting information on the estimates.
• Trial domestic abuse outputs.

For more information, please see the overview section of this user survey page, below.

We received a total of 14 responses from a variety of stakeholders.They covered the relevant sectors and the key users of this data. We also engaged more widely in the preceding work to formulate our changes.

Below is a table that shows a breakdown of the types of users who replied.   

Table 1: Respondent count by sector   

Survey respondents provided us with a substantial amount of useful feedback. Users told us that they used our domestic abuse statistics and data for academic research, improving policy or processes, and planning service provision.

The survey findings showed that over three-quarters (77%) of users thought we should replace the existing CSEW domestic abuse questions with the new domestic abuse questions (PDF, 471KB) we had been trialling on the survey since April 2023.

We asked users to what extent they agreed with the statement:

“The new domestic abuse questions accurately capture the lived experiences of domestic abuse victims.”

Of the 13 responses to this question, 54% of respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed”, 8% “neither agreed or disagreed” and 39% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”.

When asked whether they thought some abuse types were missing from the questions, half of users felt there were, with the other half feeling the questions captured all types. In addition, specific requests were made for:

• broader questions on technology-facilitated abuse
• questions specifically identifying faith-based abuse
• questions on child victims witnessing domestic abuse

4 in 5 users (82%) found it “very easy” or “quite easy” to access the trial outputs, while the remaining 18% found it “neither easy nor difficult”.

More information on the user survey responses can be found in our Redevelopment of domestic abuse statistics: research update May 2025 article.

We used the survey findings as a component of our evaluation of the new questions along with the substantial cognitive testing, previous user feedback and data analysis outlined in our Evaluating a new measure of domestic abuse article. With all of this information we have decided to change to using the new survey questions on the Crime Survey for England and Wales to measure domestic abuse from April 2025.

This means that, from April 2025, our official statistics on domestic abuse will be derived from the new domestic abuse questions. In addition, the estimates published in Section 3 of our Redevelopment of domestic abuse statistics: research update December 2024 article should now be treated as official statistics.

We are extremely grateful to everyone involved in the redevelopment of the domestic abuse survey questions. We look forward to future engagement to help shape the new domestic abuse outputs, as we continue to develop them following the permanent inclusion of the new questions.

The UK Statistics Assembly brings together users, producers and stakeholders, to discuss and advise on the UK’s statistical priorities and user needs.   

It's important that the Assembly is informed by a variety of perspectives from across the statistics system.  

To ensure that the Assembly design and planning reflects a range of external views and benefited from their advice, experience and independence, an Assembly Delivery Group was established. Organisations represented on the group are: 

• Academy of Social Sciences  

• British Chambers of Commerce  

• Government Statistical Service  

• Joseph Rowntree Foundation  

• National Statistician's Expert User Advisory Committee representatives 

• Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 

• Office for Statistics Regulation  

• Royal Statistical Society  

• Scottish Government 

• UK Research and Innovation 

• UK Statistics Authority 

• Welsh Government 

• Westmorland and Furness Council 

The Office for National Statistics provides the secretariat for the group. 

Ahead of the Assembly event on 22 January 2025, we held a call for contributions which ran for eight weeks between September and November 2024. This took the form of a short questionnaire. It asked for:  

• topic and cross-cutting theme discussion preferences  

• suggestions for agenda discussion items and presenters 

• examples of statistical and data priorities, gaps, and public and user needs

Who we heard from  

We were pleased to receive a wide range of quality contributions from a broad set of organisations and individuals. 

Some organisations submitted several contributions. We have broken down the number of organisations or individuals who submitted a contribution by sector, as follows.  

What we heard 

We asked contributors to indicate the top three topics and cross-cutting themes they would like discussed at the Assembly. The following lists are from most preferred to least preferred. 

Statistical topics in order of preference. 

• Economy and growth 

• Equalities 

• Health and social care 

• Population 

• Education, training and skills 

• Cost of living, poverty and prices 

• Employment 

• Environment and nature 

• Well-being 

• Business, trade and industry 

• Net zero 

• Family and community 

• Crime, justice and law 

• Migration 

• Transport 

• Housing 

• Skills 

• Agriculture and farming 

• Energy 

• Defence and armed forces 

 

Cross-cutting themes in order of preference. 

• Data linkage and integration 

• Regional and local 

• Data innovation and artificial intelligence 

• Communications and engagement 

• Quality 

• Methodology 

• Data ethics and privacy 

• Code of Practice for Statistics application beyond government 

• Code of Practice for Statistics revisions 

• International 

Contributors also described the topics and themes they felt most important to discuss at the Assembly, indicating their priorities, gaps and evidence of unmet user needs. The detailed qualitative feedback and evidence we received introduced some additional topics and preferences.  

In collaboration with the Assembly Delivery Group, we used the call for contribution submissions to develop a comprehensive, interactive agenda. It is designed based on the indicated preferences, as well as the detailed qualitative evidence from the call for contributions and further feedback. The agenda consists of 15 distinct discussion sessions, in three concurrent blocks of five, covering a range of statistical topics (such as health and economic statistics) and cross-cutting themes (such as data linkage and coherence). To facilitate attendee participation, each session is framed by a question. 

You can see the full Assembly agenda on the UK Statistics Authority website.

We thank everyone who contributed. Due to the high interest in this first Assembly and the broad range of subjects raised in the call for contributions, we could not include all the requests from all submissions on the agenda. All submissions will be shared with the National Statistician’s Expert User Advisory Committee for their report to the UK Statistics Authority Board. 

Between 6 August and 23 October 2024, we engaged with users of our consumer price inflation item indices data and price quotes microdataset to better understand how they are used. These datasets are published on the same day as our inflation figures and are supplementary to our consumer price inflation, UK bulletin and reference tables.

With the planned introduction of groceries scanner data, we will no longer be able to publish the item indices data and price quote microdataset in their current forms. Our data-sharing agreements with retailers providing scanner data will lead to the discontinuation of price quote microdata for Divisions 1 and 2 (food and non-alcoholic beverages, and alcohol and tobacco). While the coverage of the analytical microdata will be reduced, the introduction of large scanner datasets will greatly improve the quality of our accredited official inflation statistics.

There may be scope to publish alternative data products which meet the current needs of existing microdata users. To better understand those needs, we ran a short user engagement questionnaire to capture more information about how these data are currently being used.

We received 15 external responses from a variety of users. Below is a table that shows a breakdown of the type of respondents who replied to the questionnaire.

Table 1: Respondent count by sector

All respondents were in analytical roles.

Respondents were also asked to share how they make use of both datasets, as outlined in the below table.

Table 2: Use count of each dataset

For both datasets, the frequency of the data use was split evenly between irregular or occasional usage, and regular monthly or quarterly usage.

Many of the price quote microdataset users indicated that they try and understand how the price quote data have influenced higher-level index movements. This is often in the context of improving inflation forecasting models. Users indicated they wish to understand the extent to which price movements have been influenced by one-off events, compared with broader movements across the price sample. They also indicated interest in the prevalence of discounting across the price sample, as well as making use of other marker codes such as temporary missingness or sample replacements.

A further area of common interest is in understanding regional variation in prices. In some cases, users are seeking to construct higher-level regional aggregates. In other cases, exploratory analysis of the regional data is undertaken.

Some users highlighted that having a long-run, continuous dataset of comparable price quote data is particularly valuable to the wider research community. One user suggested copying the approach used to release census extracts, through a “sample of anonymised records”, drawing a sample in a way which mimics the CPI price collection design.

The item indices dataset is commonly used for the construction of alternative aggregates of inflation data, whether as a cross-check for elementary aggregation from the price quote data, or to supplement special aggregates where the price quote data for a particular item are unavailable.

As detailed in our blog, we will not be introducing scanner data into our consumer price inflation statistics until March 2026. This means that the price quote microdataset will continue to be available in its current form up until this date, with some structural changes resulting from the processing improvements planned for March 2025 (more information will be provided in the Consumer price inflation, UK bulletin published on 19 February 2025).

However, from March 2026, our data sharing agreements with scanner data retailers mean we will have to discontinue the price quote microdataset for Divisions 1 and 2 (food and non-alcoholic beverages, and alcohol and tobacco). Price quote data for the remaining divisions will continue to be available as per the current publication.

The size and structure of the scanner data is intrinsically different to the current data, making them unsuitable for some existing uses. For example, whilst a price quote in the locally collected dataset can be identified as “on-sale”, scanner data unit prices are averaged across three weeks, during which time products may have been both on and off sale at different points of the month.

Nonetheless, the questionnaire responses suggest that there are aggregate statistics that could be produced to meet some of the existing needs of users of the price quote microdataset. Before March 2026, we aim to share example aggregate statistics with users, and would welcome further user feedback about them.

From March 2026, groceries data (Divisions 1 and 2) will continue to be available as part of the item indices dataset. However, the move from sample items to broader, exhaustive “consumption segments” (see the article, Introducing alternative data into consumer price statistics - aggregation and weights) means that, from March 2025, disaggregate groceries indices will have less specific definitions. Changes to the classification structure (as described in the article, Classification of new data in UK consumer price statistics) mean that specific item indices for Divisions 1 and 2 will no longer be calculated as part of the aggregation process. For all other divisions, the consumption segment level will be equivalent to the existing item level, so these indices will continue to be available in their current form.

We would like to thank all of those who took part in the user engagement questionnaire and provided us with invaluable feedback that will guide future changes to the dataset. We intend to provide further opportunities to engage and inform users with updates before March 2026.

If you have any further questions or would like to request additional information, please email cpi@ons.gov.uk.

We are transforming some of our birth and labour statistics, so they are more coherent, efficient, and better meet user needs. This follows the Health and Social Care Statistical Outputs consultation commissioned by the Health and Social Care Statistics Leadership Forum. To supplement these results with views from members of the public, we asked which births statistics are important and interesting for them.

We received 151 responses to the first part of the survey and 133 responses to the second part. 

Percentages and proportions below refer to the number of participants that answered the question. 

The majority of participants (60.5%) have previously looked for information about birth labour or pregnancy on any of the topics mentioned in this survey. Out of those, 47% reported it was either very or quite difficult to find the statistics compared to 29% saying it was very or quite easy.  

Over half of respondents (55.6%) were mothers or prospective mothers. The remaining participants included healthcare professionals or those working with pregnant women (15.3%), researchers or analysts (11.3%) and fathers or partners (4.8%). 

Table 1. Percentage or ratings for each topic – all participants 

Table 2. Percentage or ratings for each topic – mothers or prospective mothers 

 

Table 3. Percentage or ratings for each characteristic – all participants 

Table 4. Percentage or ratings for each characteristic – mothers or prospective mothers 

Participants were asked if there is anything else they would like to say about birth statistics and how they have used them. The following themes emerged from the answers. 

First, the need for more accessible and reliable data. Several respondents mentioned the difficulty in finding good quality statistics and the need for data to be more easily found and user-friendly. ​ 

Second, the importance of birth statistics in decision-making. Many respondents mentioned the importance of accurate data in making informed decisions about birth and care, and in supporting discussions with health professionals.​ 

Participants have also mentioned interest in the following: birth and postnatal care; pain relief during labour and birth; continuity of care and satisfaction with care; birth outcomes and complications; breastfeeding and postnatal care; the presence and involvement of fathers during labour and more information about characteristics of fathers. 

We combined our Births in England and Wales and Birth Characteristics in England and Wales bulletins. This was done to improve coherence and efficiency of our statistical outputs. While streamlining the production of these birth statistics, we made sure that all the topics and characteristics that were reported as interesting by users in this survey are continued to be published in the new versions of our datasets. 

We introduced additional and more granular age breakdowns for numbers of births by gestational age and number of previous live-born children into our Births in England and Wales: linked births dataset. Previously it has been published for mothers aged under 25, 25 to 34 and 35 and over, now it is produced by 5-year age bands. Additionally, in the same table we produced more granular breakdown by the number of previous live-born children. It used to be produced for either 0 or 1 or more previous live-born children and now it includes, 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 or more previous live-born children. 

Currently, we are exploring the possibility of supplementing our core births registrations and notifications statistics with NHS maternity data to better meet user needs highlighted in this survey. 

We undertook a user engagement exercise to better understand user needs for producer price inflation statistics with the aim of refining and rationalising the published outputs. This took place from 20 March to 22 May 2024 and was part of our continuous improvement strategy. 

A summary of the questions asked and the proposed changes to existing outputs presented alongside this exercise can be found in the related documents found attached to the overview section of this webpage. 

Benefits to users 

We believe the actions we are taking to refine, simplify and rationalise our outputs will make them better for our users and us. They will: 

• make our datasets more focused 

• easier to find 

• easier to access 

• easier to produce 

• and free up capacity in our team to develop statistical products to meet new or emerging needs 

We would like to thank all respondents for taking part in the engagement exercise and appreciate the time taken to share their views. 

The exercise received responses from representatives of businesses, industry bodies, central and local government, academia, and individuals responding in a personal capacity. 

The following key comments emerged: 

• improvements to the documentation we provide on Quality and Methodology Information (QMI), including metadata for the proposed new datasets and an understanding of the current index hierarchy 

• improvements to the structure and format of datasets 

• expanded commentary within the monthly statistical bulletin 

• publication of monthly services producer price indices (SPPIs) 

• greater granularity in the published datasets, including publication of item level data and the weights used to aggregate to the 6-digit index level 

The purpose of this engagement exercise was to gain a better understanding of user needs for producer price inflation statistics. This ensures changes made to future publications and accompanying data better meet these needs. 

We have concluded that the new outputs will be an improvement compared with the current datasets and will better meet the needs of most of our users.  

Over the next 6-to-12-month period, we will: 

• begin publication of improved datasets once the proposals have been updated to take account of the feedback received. This will include: 

• merging some of our existing datasets which present the same or similar information 

• reducing the total number of separate datasets 

• removing duplications of information and series 

• removing unnecessary data and information 

• introducing data and information which adds to the quality of our statistical outputs and datasets 

To help users adjust to using the datasets in their new format there will be a transitionary period which will be communicated with users. We will also: 

• publish an updated version of our quality and methodology information (QMI) which will reflect our current methods and strengths, limitations, and appropriate uses of the data we create and publish. We will include metadata for the proposed new datasets and an understanding of the index hierarchy.  
   

• continue to review our data and methods as part of our strategy for continued improvement, consulting users as appropriate. 

We have noted that users want expanded commentary and more regular publication of SPPI data. These are beyond the scope of the current set of changes and improvements we are undertaking. However, we will consider these requests as part of planning for future development work.  

For details of all the feedback received and what we are doing in response, please see our response summary.

This engagement exercise took place during the previous government. We intended to publish a response no later than 12 weeks from the closing of the engagement, however, this response was paused due to the pre-election period of sensitivity.  

We undertook an engagement exercise on user needs from 2022-based national, subnational, and household projections. The engagement exercise ran for six weeks, from 30 January to 12 March 2024, and we held an online webinar on 20 February 2024. The engagement enabled us to gather feedback on users’ output needs from the upcoming projections releases, and to understand what users would like to see in our releases, such as specific variants or new dataset formats.

We conducted this engagement earlier in our production processes than in the past to enable enough time for us to consider and, where possible, meet users’ needs, and to help us prepare for the set of 2022-based projections. For further details, please see our full response summary document.

We would like to thank all respondents for their valuable feedback which will continue to guide our work over the short- and long-term. Some user requests involve longer-term implementation and planning, which we may introduce in a phased approach over time, potentially as part of wider activities within the transformation of population and migration statistics. 

The engagement exercise received 39 responses from a range of stakeholders. These consisted of: 

• 15 responses from local authorities in England 

• 10 responses from other government departments  

• 9 responses from individuals 

• 5 responses from academia, charities and other groups 

The overall feedback on the format of publications showed that users find our accompanying documentation useful, such as statistical bulletins, methodology documents and quality and methodology information (QMI). They were commended for being well-written and designed for a general audience.

It was noted that the articles on methods and assumptions are easy to understand and sufficiently detailed for users to be able to accurately interpret the figures from the projections. These articles also give users the background information needed to make the best use of the projections. However, some users said that they would like to see more technically detailed articles for more experienced and technical users. 

Users highlighted the need for more information about our assumption-setting process and the role of our expert advisory panels. They would also like to see analysis of accuracy and historical changes made around methodology and assumptions used across previous runs of projections. They would like us to provide them with guidance on the appropriate use of our projections and clarify the relationship between mid-year population estimates and admin-based population estimates.  

The engagement has highlighted the need for: 

• a suite of variant projections (broadly similar to those in our 2018-based projections) 

• population projections by ethnic group or country of birth, marital status, disability status, and religious affiliations 

• technically detailed articles on how demographic assumptions were developed, how the projections were produced and the accuracy of past projections releases 

• background information needed to make the best use of the projections 

• population projections for smaller geographic areas 

• a web-based tool enabling users to make customised tables  

For further details, please see our full response summary document. 

We acknowledge the need for guidance on the appropriate use of our projections and their relationship between mid-year estimates and admin-based population estimates. We will publish detailed guidance and updated QMI reports, including information about the strengths and limitations of our projections and their underlying data, and guidance on their appropriate use. 

We have also noted that users would like to see more information around our assumption setting processes and the role of our expert advisory panels. To ensure that the assumption setting process is transparent and well-understood, we plan to continue to make available a summary of the National Population Projections Expert Advisory Panel meeting minutes and membership to users on request. This user feedback highlights the need for us to continue to include information on the evidence to support the assumed future levels of migration, fertility, and mortality and to provide more information on our assumption setting.  

In producing 2022-based projections, we will need to balance and phase the improvements we want to make against the resources we have available. Current work will be focused on the following potential developments: 

• exploring the feasibility of producing a suite of variants requested by our users 

• where possible, reformatting datasets to meet accessibility and machine-readable requirements 

• producing tables of contents or similar release contents files for both subnational population projections and household projections so that our users can find relevant datasets and articles with ease 

• releasing projections data on Nomis in a timely manner and, for the 2022-based national population projections release, we are exploring a new online tool whereby users would be able to select the data (including variant projections) they wish to access 

• analyses of the accuracy, and historical changes made around our methodology and assumptions used across previous projections 

• exploring the feasibility of producing projections based on ethnic group, country of birth and other characteristics 

• exploring the methodological and quality implications of incorporating data from the latest three censuses in the 2022-based household projections 

• feasibility of producing 2022-based household projections broken down by requested household types, such as lone parent households  

Many of the other proposed requests involve longer-term planning and implementation which we will look to introduce over time. For further details, please see our full response summary document. 

We plan to communicate updates through our Population Statistics newsletter, which you can subscribe to on our website. The ONS release calendar contains the latest information on population projections releases and will be updated as we work towards the next releases. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) ran our annual stakeholder satisfaction survey from 6 December 2023 to 22 January 2024 to understand users’ and stakeholders’ satisfaction with and use of our statistics.

The survey findings form part of our wider stakeholder engagement programme, and help us to improve our offer, including how we communicate with you. 

We asked users questions on a range of topics, including:

• how they access and use our statistics
• to what extent the statistics meet their needs
• awareness and use of contact and engagement channels, such as newsletters and events
• awareness, use, and satisfaction with three of our core programmes of work: the Integrated Data Service (IDS), the Ambitious, Radical, Inclusive Economics Statistics (ARIES) transformation programme, and ONS Local

We received 715 responses from a variety of respondents. Of these, 460 use our statistics for both personal and professional uses, and 255 use our statistics for personal uses only.

After using our statistics out of personal interest, the most frequent reasons for using our statistics were for “understanding work-related issues” and “supporting policy and decision-making”. From the qualitative feedback, respondents also shared that statistics were being used to understand their local community, to disseminate information to colleagues and stakeholders, and as a means to develop best quality practices in methodology. The most common professional sectors for respondents were local government and business.

Feedback from respondents was broadly positive. We found that 84% agree the ONS is a trustworthy organisation, and 82% agree we produce statistics to a high standard. We also received positive feedback on how well we meet users’ needs on our range of statistical topics, and how we engage with users and stakeholders through our range of channels. 

We received constructive feedback on our range of programmes, including ONS Local, IDS, and ARIES. We also received useful feedback on what we are doing well as an organisation and where we can improve, such as continuing to ensure the ONS website meets user needs, ensuring user-friendliness of our statistical outputs, and doing more to promote our role as an impartial source of official statistics.  

We also received qualitative feedback on additional services or statistical products that would be of most use to users and stakeholders, including the increased use of application programming interfaces (APIs) for accessing data, developing more explainer pieces for lay users, and producing statistics at more localised levels.

The findings from the survey provides us with insight and helps us to continually improve our offer to users and stakeholders. The findings are shared widely across the ONS and have been discussed with individual teams for colleagues to consider as part of their work. We are progressing a series of recommendations as part of our wider stakeholder engagement work for 2024/2025, and the findings will complement these recommendations.

Thank you to all who participated in the survey. Your feedback is invaluable in driving positive change across the ONS, and ensures we continue to put user needs at the forefront of all that we do in serving the public good.

If you would like to discuss the findings of this report with the ONS External Affairs team, or have any questions about this research, please get in touch by email: external.affairs@ons.gov.uk. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) ran a consultation from 29 June 2023 to 26 October 2023 on the Future of Population and Migration Statistics in England and Wales. It was designed to provide us with information on how people currently use our population and migration statistics. It also captured user feedback on our proposals for future development of these statistics. For further details, please see our consultation document (PDF, 1,334 KB).

We received a total of 706 responses to the consultation. Users were asked why population statistics are important to them.

Broadly, the main reasons included:

• informing national and local public policy to provide the best strategy and intelligence
• monitoring trends and changes in communities and populations
• informing funding and allocation decisions around service provision, to meet the needs of the local communities and societal groups
• academic research and detailed analysis in the respective fields of study
• respondents’ personal interest in being kept up to date on the analysis of data for issues important to them or their organisation
• use of population data via census records for family and social history purposes

On 17 June 2025 the UK Statistics Authority (the Authority), on the advice of the Acting National Statistician, made a recommendation to government on the future of population and migration statistics in England and Wales. You can read the recommendation on the Authority’s website.

To accompany the recommendation, we have published a Consultation Outcomes report, which details the thematic analysis from the consultation and the evidence that informs the recommendation. It contains an analysis and findings of the responses and feedback that were received during the consultation.

Cynhaliodd y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol (y SYG) ymgynghoriad rhwng 29 Mehefin 2023 a 26 Hydref 2023 ar Ddyfodol Ystadegau am y Boblogaeth a Mudo yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Ei nod oedd rhoi gwybodaeth i ni am y ffordd y mae pobl yn defnyddio ein hystadegau am y boblogaeth a mudo. Roedd hefyd yn casglu adborth gan ddefnyddwyr ar ein cynigion ar gyfer datblygu'r ystadegau hyn yn y dyfodol. Ceir rhagor o fanylion yn ein dogfen ymgynghori (PDF, 1,334 KB).

Cawsom gyfanswm o 706 o ymatebion i'r ymgynghoriad. Gofynnwyd i'r defnyddwyr pam y mae ystadegau am y boblogaeth yn bwysig iddynt.

Yn gyffredinol, roedd y prif resymau'n cynnwys:

• llywio polisi cyhoeddus cenedlaethol a lleol i roi'r strategaeth a'r wybodaeth orau
• monitro tueddiadau a newidiadau mewn cymunedau a phoblogaethau
• llywio penderfyniadau cyllid a dyrannu ynghylch gwasanaethau a ddarperir, er mwyn diwallu anghenion cymunedau lleol a grwpiau cymdeithasol
• ymchwil academaidd a dadansoddiad manwl yn y cyfryw feysydd astudiaeth
• diddordeb personol ymatebwyr mewn cael y wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am y broses o ddadansoddi data ar gyfer materion sy'n bwysig iddyn nhw neu eu sefydliad
• y defnydd o ddata am y boblogaeth drwy gofnodion y cyfrifiad at ddibenion hanes teulu a hanes cymdeithasol

Ar 17 Mehefin 2025, gwnaeth Awdurdod Ystadegau'r DU, ar gyngor Yr Ystadegydd Gwladol Dros Dro, argymhelliad i'r llywodraeth ar ddyfodol ystadegau am y boblogaeth a mudo yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Gallwch ddarllen yr argymhelliad ar wefan Awdurdod Ystadegau'r DU.

I gyd-fynd â'r argymhelliad, rydym wedi cyhoeddi adroddiad ar Ganlyniadau'r Ymgynghoriad sy'n nodi'r dadansoddiad thematig o'r ymgynghoriad a'r dystiolaeth sy'n llywio'r argymhelliad. Mae'n cynnwys dadansoddiad a chanfyddiadau o'r ymatebion a'r adborth a gafwyd yn ystod yr ymgynghoriad.

 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) completed an engagement exercise to establish what users of online discussion forums would like to see on a forum for users and producers of statistics.  

We ran a survey to gain user feedback from 6 July to 13 August 2023. This was followed by semi-structured interviews between 14 August and 15 September 2023, with those who opted-in at the end of their survey.

This engagement exercise provided us with feedback about what users and producers of statistics would like to have included and avoided on an online discussion forum. These findings will help inform the decision-making process as we revitalise the ONS’s online discussion forum, StatsUserNet, ready for an early 2024 relaunch.

The 2023 discussion forum improvement survey received 227 responses. Interviews were completed with 23 survey respondents who opted in. Responses were gained from statistics users who currently use discussion forums, as well as those who do not use discussion forums but would be interested in using one which meets their needs.

The survey and interview respondents came from a range of different sectors. The full breakdowns are in tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Survey participant sectors Survey respondents selected all sectors which applied to them.
Sector	Total
Local authority or government department	127
Academia	29
None, personal interest	25
Professional service, such as media or consultancy	20
Professional network, such as a data or work community	15
Not-for-profit organisation	15
Community group	10
Statistical student	5
Other*	19

*Other included: arm’s length body, national statistical institute, researcher, public sector, finance, retired, business and trade, and user groups.

Table 2: Interview participant sectors Participants shared one main sector.
Sector	Total
Central government department	6
Academic	5
Arm’s length body	3
Local government	3
Consultant	2
Student	1
National statistics institute	1
Public sector	1
Charity	1
Total	23

Feedback indicated how the participants use discussion forums, and the functionalities they find useful or hindering on a forum. Common requests included:

Technical features, such as:

• clear navigation and improved accessibility
• clear organisation by theme and topic
• an improved search function which allows filtering and Boolean searching*
• the ability to tag topics and other users to make it easier to find posts
• the ability to select notification topics and frequency
• user profiles for sharing the statistical background of users
• guidance on how to use the features of StatsUserNet
• a word limit on posts so content is concisely presented

* A Boolean search broadens or limits search results by allowing users to search by keywords, phrases, or combinations of these using operators: “”, *, AND, OR, NOT.

Content features, such as:

• frequent, up-to-date posts to engage with
• additional categories for best practice, methodology, question and answer areas for learning, and cross-cutting theme areas
• more interaction with statisticians from the ONS and the Government Statistical Service
• an a-political platform which is a safe space to search and post
• moderation of repetitive, offensive and political content
• posts with links or references to the data or publication discussed
• a space which directs users to published official data sets and publications

Community requests, such as:

• wider promotion of StatsUserNet in the workplace and in social media spaces where professionals and statistical user groups reside
• a community of both users and producers of statistics to discuss statistics together and answer one another’s questions
• a community of statistics professionals, academics, and consultants from a range of backgrounds
• encouragement for statistical students to ask questions and share ideas
• all users to post and respond to one another regularly

In 2023, we:

• created a findings report and a statement of requirements based on feedback
• updated existing StatsUserNet policies to add referencing posts and authors
• added guidance to StatsUserNet to explain how to navigate the site
• updated the navigation menu on StatsUserNet
• began researching options to improve StatsUserNet based on the statement of requirements

In 2024, we will:

• relaunch StatsUserNet, including as many requested features as possible
• upload a suite of user guidance for how to navigate and use the platform
• seek more statistics professionals to join the platform as users
• recruit voluntary champions from all backgrounds to bring new users online
• continue to ask for user feedback to make sure the changes are suitable
• continue to update the platform based on incoming user feedback

If you have any questions about this work, please contact statsusernet@ons.gov.uk.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) ran a consultation on the Household Financial Statistics Transformation (HFST) project, from 1 December 2022 to 23 February 2023. It was designed to provide us with information on how our statistics on income, expenditure and wealth are currently used, and to capture feedback on a series of proposals for the longer-term future of our statistics. For further details, please see our consultation document.  

We would like to thank all respondents for their valuable feedback, which will continue to guide our work in this area. We will keep users informed of our plans for this work as it develops into the future. 

The engagement exercise received 49 responses from a range of stakeholders.   

These consisted of:   

• 20 responses from the government sector, including local government and public bodies  

• 1 response from the business sector  

• 4 responses from think tanks  

• 3 responses from the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector  

• 12 responses from the academia and research sector  

• 9 responses from other respondents responding in a personal capacity  

Responses were submitted on behalf of individuals and organisations.  

Responses to the consultation highlighted the importance of our regular statistics on wealth, income and expenditure for providing valuable insights into the financial well-being of households.  

The consultation has allowed us to further understand user needs relating to these statistics. It highlighted: 

• the need for ONS to continue to produce its current range of Household Financial Statistics covering income, expenditure and wealth 

• while more frequent insights into financial well-being (the proposed household financial indicators) were seen as valuable, they should be developed alongside existing statistics rather than as a replacement 

• the need for a coherent set of income, expenditure and wealth statistics in order to produce consistent analysis across the topics 

• the issues around the coherence of the statistics, particularly on the topic of income 

• the various use cases for expenditure statistics at different levels of granularity 

• that users of wealth statistics would value an annual publication but recognised the challenges around sample size and valued the detail in our biennial outputs 

• the support for the regular publication of financial well-being statistics, particularly on financial resilience 

 For further details, please see our consultation response document.

In taking forward work in this area, we need to balance and phase the improvements we want to make against the resources we have available. Current work is focused on the following developments. 

• Re-introducing our financial well-being statistics with publications planned on poverty and financial resilience. 

• The introduction of a new digital diary tool for our field force interviewers to help with data collection from those that take part in our Living Costs and Food (LCF) survey. 

• Developing our research plans for income estimates for small areas in line with our vision for the future of population and migration statistics in England and Wales and feedback from users sought through the consultation that launched on 29 June 2023. 

• Potentially making our surveys shorter and simpler to reduce respondent burden, at a time when the survey industry faces difficulties engaging respondents.  

Since publishing the consultation, we’ve also further explored some of our proposals, including research and testing of changes to some of our household financial surveys. These include:  

• research into the collection of wealth data on our LCF survey 

• exploration of methods of collection such as the digital diary for the collection of expenditure 

• analysis of alternative data options 

More significant change which we had previously planned as part of the HFST project will require further investment. Responses to the consultation will provide a valuable part of the evidence base for securing funding for this work in the future. 

We would like to thank all respondents for their valuable feedback, which will continue to guide our work in this area. We will keep users informed of our plans for this work as it develops into the future. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) undertook an engagement exercise on a new mortality projection methodology for the national population projections (NPPs). It took place from 9 January to 20 February 2023 and was part of our strategy to continuously review and improve our methods.  

This exercise allowed us to gather feedback on the planned use of our statistics that could arise from the prospective change to the new mortality projection methodology. 

As a result of this feedback and with agreement from the NPP committee, which oversees the production of NPPs, we will adopt the new mortality projection methodology and provide guidance to users on its use in the next round of the NPPs, which will incorporate Census 2021 data for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

For further details, please see our response summary - new mortality assumptions method for NPPs.  

We would like to thank all respondents for taking part in the engagement exercise and appreciate the time taken to share their views. 

The engagement exercise received 23 responses in total, including six responses by email, from a range of stakeholders. These included businesses, industry bodies, central and local level government, academia, and those responding in a personal capacity. 

When we asked what your overall comments on the prospective mortality projection methodology were, the following main themes emerged. 

Methodology 

• Broad support for the new mortality projection methodology, which users said seems to be transparent and statistically sound. 

• Some users requested that more information be published on the detail of the methodology.  

• Some users valued the transparency and efficiency of using a model, while others were concerned about difficulty replicating a complex model for their own use.  

• There was a request to publish the model code and data to aid users’ understanding. 

• There is support for the added flexibility of the model to weight up more recent data and weight down more historical data; the weighting will need to be reviewed periodically. 

• The model holds up to scrutiny well when compared with similar projection models (such as those used by the Continuous Mortality Investigation | Institute and Faculty of Actuaries). 

• Further detail would be useful on how the initial mortality improvements were derived and how the cohort effects have been incorporated.  

• Discussion of the age ranges where different models are used needs to be presented clearly.  

• There are differences in the treatment of old age mortality compared with other models, but there was support for the proposal to treat mortality at older ages separately.  

Expert opinion  

• The input of expert opinion is valued, especially for mortality shocks and the uncertainty of long-term improvements. 

• Users requested more information on the membership of the expert panel.  

• Any assumptions need to be fully supported by data to show they are unbiased.  

Potential areas for development  

• It would be useful to test how the model would have performed in the past, to consider the accuracy of assumptions from expert opinion and potential for changing the weights or to publish results from past projections run using the new methodology. 

• We need to present mortality variants, for example for more and less optimistic assumptions about mortality improvement and assign probabilities to them. 

• Users told us in their requests for mortality projections for different subgroups, for example, by ethnic group or by deprivation decile, that these groups have been affected differently by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and experience different rates of mortality improvement. 

For further details, please see our response summary - new mortality assumptions method for NPPs. 

We committed to publishing this response summary to the engagement exercise by spring 2023.  

We are now using all feedback to refine and develop the new mortality projection methodology further to meet user needs. 

We have concluded from the results of the feedback that the mortality projection methodology is an improvement compared with our current methodology and will produce outputs that will broadly meet user needs. 

We will continue to make expert advisory panel minutes and the membership available to users on request to ensure that the assumption setting process is transparent. This will include information on the evidence to support the assumed long-term rates of mortality improvement by age and sex and the speed of convergence to these long-term rates. 

We will regularly review the specification of the model including weighting and shock adjustments and will be transparent with users about any changes that we make.  

We have noted that users have suggested applying the proposed methodology retrospectively to previous runs of projections. This is a complex task, and we know that any methodology – whether the proposed model or the current method – would not project the slowdown observed in mortality improvements since 2010. Our analysis of 2018-based and 2020-based projections suggests that the changes introduced by the model are no larger than those seen as assumptions change from one projection round to the next. This was detailed in the supporting article Prospective new method for setting mortality assumptions for national population projections, UK: January 2023. The model has the advantage of using the full time series of data on population and deaths, while also having the flexibility to weight up data from more recent years if the expert advisory panel feel this would better reflect likely future trends. Rather than re-running previous projections, we plan to invest in developing better ways to explain the uncertainty around future projections.  

We have noted that users require more information about the model. We will publish detailed guidance and an updated NPP Quality and Methodology Information (QMI) report including information about the strengths and weaknesses of any projections produced and guidance on how to use them. 

We will consider how we can make the model code publicly available. The input data is largely already in the public domain. We plan to run a user engagement exercise to understand users’ needs for future NPPs, Subnational Population Projections and Household projections. This will include questions about needs for variant projections, which will inform our assumption setting for the NPPs. 

We will communicate updates through our Demography newsletter. Please email projections@ons.gov.uk if you would like to sign up to receive these newsletters. The ONS release calendar contains information on population projections releases and we will update it accordingly.