We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on our new experimental balanced measure of regional gross value added (GVA). This new development is designed to provide a single best estimate of regional GVA, combining the best parts of the existing income and production measures.

We wanted to be sure that users of regional GVA statistics welcomed the single measure, and to identify any concerns that people have with the methods, test results and our proposed presentation of the statistics in future publications.

You Said

We received 23 written responses from a wide range of people representing central, local and devolved government, private companies and think tanks, universities and schools. In addition, we met with many other stakeholders to present our consultation and listen to their views, at events held in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. The main feedback was:

  • Respondents strongly supported the introduction of a single balanced measure of regional GVA, and some requested that we continue to publish the pre-balanced income and production measures, at least for the first few years.
  • A majority of respondents were happy with the method we have used, and some offered suggestions for potential enhancements to the methodology.
  • A majority of respondents were happy with the test results, and some offered suggestions for parts that could benefit from further attention.
  • A majority of respondents were happy with our plans for the presentation of the data, and some offered suggestions for additional supporting information.

We Did

We intend to:

  • Publish the first experimental balanced estimates of regional GVA on or around 13 December 2017.
  • Publish the pre-balanced income and production estimates alongside the balanced estimates, at least while the balanced estimates remain experimental statistics.
  • Publish nominal and real estimates of balanced GVA for 80 industries at the NUTS1 level, and 71 industries at the NUTS2 level.
  • Publish real estimates of balanced regional GVA one year earlier than before.
  • Publish the existing set of income components at all geographic levels from NUTS1 down to local authority district, consistent with the balanced GVA estimates.
  • Consider the various suggestions made by respondents, with a view to introducing further improvements in future publications, as resources permit.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on which causes of death are appropriate to include in the National Statistics definition of deaths related to the misuse of alcohol.

We hoped that the consultation would result in a harmonised approach, across government and the devolved administrations, to measuring deaths which are wholly attributable to the misuse of alcohol.  

You Said

We received 20 responses to the consultation from a range of organisations including academics, government departments and agencies, and charities. The main feedback was:

  • respondents strongly supported the need for a harmonised approach across government to measuring deaths caused by alcohol misuse;
  • the majority of respondents recommended that ONS use a revised indicator of alcohol-specific deaths;
  • several respondents voiced concern with excluding unspecified hepatitis and cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver from the revised indicator, noting that more UK based evidence on the aetiology of these deaths is needed before they are discounted entirely.  

We Did

We intend to:

  • use a revised definition of alcohol-specific deaths from the date of our next publication. This definition will also be used respond to Parliamentary Questions, and to media and customer data requests;
  • publish a brief article to communicate the definition change, the reasons for it, and its impact on the existing time series;
  • in the first publication based on the new definition, include figures on the previous definition. Subsequently, ONS will no longer publish statistics based on the previous definition;
  • in each statistical release we will report deaths from unspecified hepatitis and cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver – for information. We will also signpost to published data which shows the wider burden of alcohol misuse on other causes of death;
  • facilitate further work with public health agencies and the devolved administrations to ensure greater consistency in terminology.

We Asked

Following a reduction in the level of funding for the Crime Survey for England and Wales we asked for your opinions of the proposed options for achieving the cost savings required. We would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

You Said

We received a total of 123 responses to the consultation from academics, police forces and police and crime commissioners, local or regional government organisations, other government departments, charities and voluntary organisations. We would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

The main feedback was:

  • A majority of respondents (40%) identified Option D – reducing the response rate to 71% and the sample size by 600 - as the best option of those available for achieving the required cost savings.
  • Many respondents raised concerns regarding the removal of questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services.
  • In particular, 34 respondents (28%) specifically identified the removal of the questions on restorative justice from the 'Victimisation' module as a major concern.

We Did

We have:

  • Reduced CSEW sample size for the 2017/18 survey year by 600 households and reduced the survey response rate to 71% from October 2017 (Option D).
  • Removed the three modules of questions asked of respondents about the performance of, their experiences of and their attitudes to the criminal justice system from October 2017.
  • Retained questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services included in the ‘Victimisation’ module of the CSEW that were previously proposed for removal.

We Asked

We asked for your views on proposed changes to the household projections methodology.

We hoped that the results of this consultation would help us to produce household projections based on an improved, simplified methodology that continues to meet your needs.

You Said

We received 42 responses to the consultation. The main feedback was:

  • Some users were concerned about the proposal to project the household representative rates using only the 2001 and 2011 Census points and asked ONS to consider and report on alternative options.
  • Some issues surrounding other aspects of the methodology were raised including concern about the proposal for removing gender and marital status from the projection model and the age groups currently used in the model.
  • Variant household projections at local authority level were requested and household projections at the level of detail previously published by DCLG.
  • There was an interest in what household types would be available in the outputs.   

We Did

We intend to:
 
  • Move to using the standard 2011 Census definition for Household Reference Person as soon as possible.
  • Set up a programme of research to look at how the methodology can be improved in the light of the feedback from this consultation.
  • Establish a Household Projections Collaborative Group, including experts from within and outside ONS, to advise and work with us on this research and the longer-term development of the household projections.
  • Use the current methods as a starting point for the next release of the projections in summer 2018. The programme of research, and the Collaborative Group, will help us to identify improvements to the methods that we could make in time for that release.
  • Retain the current level of detail in published outputs and seek further evidence of requirements for variant projections.