FOI reference: FOI-2026-3617
You asked
This request concerns contact between the UK Statistics Authority, including the Office for Statistics Regulation, and external parties, in relation to the statement made in the Conservative Party’s Alternative King’s Speech on 11 May 2026 and the subsequent letter sent by the UK Statistics Authority to the Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP on 24 June 2026.
Please provide the following information, which I understand is held by the UK Statistics Authority:
All correspondence, including emails, letters, and any written records of telephone or meeting communications, between the UK Statistics Authority or the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Cabinet Office, or any Number 10 official, including ministers, special advisers, and officials of those bodies, between 11 May 2026 and 24 June 2026 inclusive, concerning the statement made in the Conservative Party’s Alternative King’s Speech on 11 May 2026 regarding welfare spending and income tax receipts, or the letter sent to Kemi Badenoch MP by the UK Statistics Authority on 24 June 2026.
Any record of a referral, complaint, or formal or informal contact received by the Office for Statistics Regulation from the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Cabinet Office, or from any minister, special adviser, or official acting in that capacity, concerning the welfare spending claim made in the Conservative Party’s Alternative King’s Speech on 11 May 2026.
The full submission, referral, or correspondence received from Full Fact that the published letter of 24 June 2026 identifies as having brought the Conservative Party’s Alternative King’s Speech claim to the Office for Statistics Regulation’s attention, together with any subsequent correspondence between the Office for Statistics Regulation and Full Fact concerning that claim between 11 May 2026 and 24 June 2026 inclusive.
Any internal briefing, submission, or analytical record produced within the UK Statistics Authority or the Office for Statistics Regulation between 11 May 2026 and 24 June 2026 that refers to the Conservative Party’s Alternative King’s Speech claim and discusses its statistical accuracy, the comparison between welfare spending and income tax receipts, or contact with any government department concerning the claim.
We said
Thank you for your request, which concerns contact between the UK Statistics Authority, including the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), and external parties, in relation to the statement made in the Conservative Party's Alternative King's Speech on 11 May 2026 and the subsequent letter sent by the UK Statistics Authority to the Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP on 24 June 2026.
You have asked for information in relation to four questions. Please find our responses, along with supporting documents, included in this response. The Head of the Office for Statistics Regulation, Ed Humpherson, would welcome the opportunity to discuss OSR's role and how this is delivered with you in more detail. Please let us know via following email if you would like to meet: regulation@statistics.gov.uk.
1. Shortly before the publication of the letter from the Interim Chair of the Authority to Kemi Badenoch MP, on 24 June, OSR sent one email to the acting Head of Profession for Statistics in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). In line with OSR's normal casework process, which is set out in our published interventions policy, this email was for information and was intended as an advance notification of OSR's planned action, given the statistics in question fall within DWP's area.
The Chair's office also spoke to the Conservative Party Campaign Headquarters press office on 24 June shortly before the letter was published, and followed up on this conversation with an email, which included the full text of the letter. Again, this email was sent before the letter was published. It is a longstanding protocol to give those we are writing to courtesy notice, of about an hour, before publication.
Shortly after the publication of the letter, on 24 June, the Chair's office wrote to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), to make them aware of the letter. This was a courtesy extended because OSR's work had drawn on and referenced figures previously confirmed by OBR. The same courtesy was extended to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for the same reason.
As requested, we have included the emails sent to DWP and OBR alongside this response. Personal data has been redacted from these emails under s.40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), as disclosure would contravene the data protection principles.
2. We confirm that we have no record of a referral, complaint, or formal or informal contact received from the organisations listed in the FOI request. Concerns about this claim were raised with OSR by the organisation Full Fact.
3. Full Fact contacted OSR by email about the Conservative Party's Alternative King's Speech claim on 15 May. OSR responded to confirm it would look into the concern raised. Shortly before the publication of the letter, on 24 June, OSR emailed Full Fact with a full response to Full Fact's concern, outlining the findings from OSR's investigation and OSR's intention to write publicly to Kemi Badenoch MP. Once the letter was published, OSR shared the link with Full Fact.
We have included all the emails relating to these conversations alongside this response. Personal data has been redacted from these emails under s.40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), as disclosure would contravene the data protection principles.
4. An internal briefing document relating to the concern and OSR's investigation into the concern was prepared by the OSR team, for the Interim Chair of the Authority. The briefing document includes a statement of the issue, the work done by members of the team to investigate the claim, OSR's conclusion and OSR's recommended course of action. We have included the briefing document, and a supporting excel document alongside this response.
The briefing document also contained an initial draft letter to Kemi Badenoch MP and a section outlining possible risks and likely reception relating to the proposed intervention. We have withheld the draft letter to Kemi Badenoch MP and the risks section of the briefing, as disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs and the free and frank provision of advice. As such, the exemptions found under s.36(2)(c) and s.36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA are engaged.
The 'Risks / likely reception' section of the briefing contains advice for the UKSA Chair to consider when determining whether and how an intervention should be made. Disclosure of this information could mean in future members of OSR feel unable to fully share risks openly and honestly, which would have a negative impact on the quality of information shared with senior leaders, and therefore on decision-making, when determining whether to make an intervention in future.
The draft letter has been withheld because the drafting process for such letters requires a safe space for exchange of advice and opinion to discuss and amend wording, in order to increase the likelihood that judgements are communicated effectively and having the desired positive impact on the production or use of statistics. As such, this safe space is essential to maintain for the effective conduct of public affairs.
This exemption is subject to a public interest test. Arguments in favour of disclosure centre on transparency regarding the decision-making process feeding into interventions. However, OSR has practiced transparency regarding this case: the finalised letter is published on the Authority website and OSR is disclosing the rest of the briefing document and all email communications requested in this FOI.
Arguments in favour of withholding the information centre on the cumulative impact of poorer quality decision-making and an inhibited drafting process. Damage to either process would undermine the impact of OSR's interventions and its regulatory function. In turn, this could allow the misuse of statistics to go unchecked in the future, causing detriment to public debate, and public confidence in government statistics. Therefore, there is a strong public interest in upholding the safe space for OSR to openly raise risks and propose draft letters for consideration by the Chair, and we consider the public interest test falls in favour of withholding the information we have outlined.
Please note, we have not redacted the draft email to Full Fact as this is the same as the final email that was sent from OSR to Full Fact: it was not subject to discussion with the Chair of the Authority.