Correspondence and documentation regarding the closure of the UK Statistics Authority Chair appointment and the Board Effectiveness Review

FOI reference: FOI-2026-3448

You asked

I am requesting the following information under the freedom of information act: 

• All correspondence and documentation regarding the decision to close the appointment process for a new UKSA chair without appointment 

• All correspondence and documentation relating to the findings of the latest external review of board effectiveness

We said

Thank you for your requests. 

UK Statistics Authority Chair appointment 

The Cabinet Office made the decision to delay the appointment process for the Authority Chair until summer 2026. This was to allow for the recruitment for the National Statistician to conclude and time to receive the recommendation from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). 

The correspondence and documentation we hold in scope of this request is available in the associated download. 

Some information has been redacted under s.40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), as disclosure would breach data protection principles.  

Board effectiveness review 

The UK Statistics Authority Board Independent Effectiveness Review (PDF, 406 KB) is available on the Authority's website.

As regards your request for correspondence and documentation relating to the findings of the latest external review of board effectiveness, please see the associated download with the information eligible for release enclosed. As previously, some personal data have been redacted under s.40(2) of FOIA, as disclosure would breach data protection principles. 

Staff interviews, Non-Executive Directors’ (NED) feedback, and the draft reports in scope of the request are exempt from disclosure under s.36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA, as release of this information would prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. 

Staff participated in interviews for the review with the understanding that their contents would be kept strictly confidential. If we were to undermine that promise, we would struggle in future to recruit staff to provide candid genuine interview responses. In turn this would prejudice the efficacy of such reviews, as the findings would not genuinely reflect the reality of the situation they are seeking to review. 

Regarding the NED’s feedback, open and honest feedback from the subjects of reviews ensures that they are balanced and consider the necessary facts. Prejudice to this safe space would likely limit this feedback. In turn, the review would not genuinely reflect the reality of the situation and would not be able to appropriately fulfil its purpose. Releasing the draft reports carries the same prejudice for the same reason, as the changes made to the report throughout the process are indicative of the Board’s comments.  

This exemption is subject to a public interest test. 

Arguments in favour of disclosure centre on transparency regarding the exact source material used to feed into the findings of the report. However, the Authority has already practised transparency in this space by publishing the report, which contains summary information about the findings of the review. 

Arguments in favour of withholding the information are that the purpose of conducting such reviews would be almost entirely undermined if participants are not willing to provide candid, honest accounts of situations as part of the investigation process. Similarly, we require candid and honest feedback from the subjects of the review to facilitate a balanced and fair review process. Therefore, there is a strong public interest in upholding the efficacy of such reviews so they can effectively hold public authorities accountable and assist with improvements to public services wherever possible. The balance of the public interest therefore falls in favour of withholding in this case.