r

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate F: Social statistics

Doc. DSS/2016/Feb/02

DSS - 15-17 SEPTEMBER 2015 - DRAFT MINUTES

MEETING OF THE EUROPEAN DIRECTORS OF SOCIAL STATISTICS

LUXEMBOURG, 15 -17 SEPTEMBER 2015

BECH BUILDING - ROOM QUETELET

2

Point 1

Welcome and introduction from the Chair.

Adoption of the agenda

The Chairman, Gallo Gueye, welcomed the participants. Further to a request from the ECB,

item 6a on data gaps in labour market statistics was brought forward on the agenda and

discussed on the first day. With this change the agenda was approved.

Concerning the revised European statistical law 223, the chairman mentioned that it will be

important for the DSS to discuss implementation aspects both at European and national levels

in a future meeting.

Point 2

Minutes of previous meetings

A. Presentation

The DSS was asked to formally approve the minutes of the meeting of 25-26 February 2015,

which had been circulated to DSS Members and modified in the light of comments received.

The chairman further informed that:

- Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/459 about the 2016 ad hoc module on

young people on the labour market was approved and published in the Official Journal

in March 2015.

- Work related to the ESeG (European Socio-economic Groups) classification is

continuing in context of the Eurostat service in charge of classifications. Eurostat will

keep the DSS informed about developments.

The final minutes of the DSS Board meeting of 2-3 July 2015 were provided for information.

B. Discussion

Following earlier discussions in the DSS Board and the DSS, Eurostat presented an updated

draft list of issues with the purpose of continuing brainstorming exercises on priorities for

social indicators and social statistics, notably in the context of better supporting joint

economic and social analysis. As was agreed, DSS Members could make presentations at

DSS meetings on selected important issues with particular focus on comparability across

countries. One issue at a time could be presented at each of the next meetings. Eurostat

informed that countries offered to make the following presentations: importance of the order

of questions on unemployment and employment data (France, DSS of September 2015),

income, consumption and wealth (France) mobility and emigration (Hungary and Portugal);

working time (Denmark); poverty (Italy). The dates of the other presentations are still to be

agreed. Eurostat thanked those countries, and indicated that other offers for presentations

would be welcome.

3

The possibility of organising a future DSS workshop on mobility and migration will be

further investigated. Eurostat further stated that it would regularly update the list of issues

and propose ways forward as required.

One country suggested that the final version of the full minutes of the DSS should be sent

earlier so that they can be sent to the next ESSC. While recalling the importance of the DSS

opinions adopted at the end of each meeting, Eurostat indicated that efforts would be made

towards quicker full minutes.

C. Opinion

1. The DSS approved the minutes of DSS 25-26 February 2015

2. The DSS took note of the minutes of DSS Board 2-3 July 2015

Point 3

Commission implementing regulation (EU) No …/.. of XXX adopting the specifications

of the 2017 ad hoc module on self-employment provided for by Council Regulation (EC)

No 577/98.

A. Presentation

The DSS was asked to give its opinion on this Regulation in view of its submission to the

ESSC in November 2015.

Eurostat presented the proposed Regulation for the LFS 2017 ad-hoc module (AHM) on self-

employment developed by a Task Force which met three times. The module was also subject

to testing organised in five countries and was supported by LAMAS in June 2015. The

proposed AHM consists of three sub-modules on 'economically dependent self-employed',

'working conditions for self-employed' and ' comparing employees and self-employed'.

The list of variables was accompanied by a model questionnaire and explanatory notes.

This is the second AHM that will be implemented under Regulation 545/2014, which

includes Eurostat co-financing and requires the adoption of the technical specifications as an

implementing act.

B. Discussion

During the discussion and in the exchange of views forms, concerns were expressed about the

burden on respondents linked to this ad-hoc module and about the complexity of the

questionnaire (especially for phone interviews), with high number of response options in

some cases. The need to carry out a thorough ex-post evaluation was highlighted.

C. Opinion

1. DSS Members unanimously approved the draft Commission Regulation which will be

submitted to the ESSC of November 2015.

4

2. The DSS agreed that the results from the application of this regulation will be evaluated so

as to draw lessons.

Point 4.1

Draft framework regulation on IESS (Integrated European Social Statistics)

A. Presentation

The DSS was invited to review a new revised draft of IESS. Previous discussions had taken

place at the April 2014 DSS (on general principles), the June 2014 DSS Board (first draft),

the September 2014 DSS (second draft), the DSS Board in December 2014 (third draft), the

February 2015 DSS (fourth draft), and at the July DSS Board (fifth draft).

Introducing the revised draft, Eurostat noted that over the course of the successive drafts

there had been many changes to reflect the views of the DSS, in the text and annexes, and in

the underlying concepts of IESS. This time again there was a number of changes, in order to

respond to the previous requests of the DSS, and to simplify, fine-tune and adjust some of the

legal elements. The annexes are now complete. The concept of "module" is not used any

longer. In the revised article 2, constraints for the revision of the annex I have been

introduced. Article 4 on "Reference population and observation units" has also been

introduced and the sampling frames are now better explained. There has been a split of article

9 into 9a. Periodicity and 9b Deadlines, due to the differences in the topics and the high

importance of both issues.

An impact assessment is currently on going on the basis of Commission standards.

B. General discussion

For the impact assessment of the current regulation several concerns were expressed in

relation to the publication of results, in particular the costs and their comparability. Eurostat

emphasised the need for a meaningful assessment of the cost implications but agreed that no

public dissemination would take place without further discussion of the figures with the

countries concerned.

Most articles in the current version of Regulation were supported by a majority of Member

States, both in the exchange of views forms and during the discussions. The discussions in

the meeting focused in particular on articles 2, 3, 9, 9b including the timeliness of SILC (item

6) and the five annexes.

Several Member States expressed concerns in relation to the use of delegated acts. Eurostat

explained again the main principles for the use of delegated acts and of implementing acts as

foreseen in the Lisbon treaty.

C. Discussion of specific points, article by article

Article 1 "Subject matter" was supported.

Article 2 "Data collections"

5

Some Member States asked for the clarification of the exact meaning of the expression

"significant burden". Eurostat replied that it is the standard formulation in EU regulations and

should be interpreted as such.

Some Member States expressed concerns about the use of delegated acts in this article.

Eurostat clarified that the flexibility given by the use of delegated acts in this article is very

important, and it should be understood at a general level as the exact list of variables (which

have a decisive impact on the cost and burden) will be decided through implementing acts.

The maximum percentages of topics that can be changed through the delegated acts (20% and

10%) were generally seen as appropriate.

Several countries questioned the need to include HBS and especially TUS in the list of topics

covered by this framework regulation. Eurostat will further reflect on this issue. As a possible

compromise, some delegations proposed including them in the regulation, but allowing for

some time until it gets implemented for these domains, as further improvements in their

quality is needed, and a Task Force could work on these subjects. It was also suggested that

TUS may be treated differently from HBS in the future.

Article 3 "Multiannual rolling planning"

The main purpose of Article 3 is to define the planning and periodicity of data collection, in

order to avoid having high workloads in certain years and much less burden in others.

A majority of comments for this article in the exchange of views refer to the variables

"collected on an ad-hoc subject required by users", as the exact meaning needed to be

clarified. Eurostat explained that this corresponds to the current Ad hoc modules in SILC and

LFS; some slots will be kept open for new policy needs. In response to concerns about

potential undefined topics (paragraph 3 "other topics than the ones defined in Annex 1"),

Eurostat will further reflect on how to clarify that this is only the case for the areas of labour

market and income and living conditions, as well as the links to Annex IV on periodicity.

Some Member States expressed concerns about the fact that the total number of variables is

not defined anywhere. Eurostat agreed to add it to the implementing acts that describe the list

and definition of variables for each data collection, in article 5.

In response to other comments of the DSS regarding formulations in the article, the word

"fieldwork" in paragraph 3.2 will be deleted, and the word "foreseen" in paragraph 3.3 will be

replaced with "provided". It was also agreed to redraft the paragraph 3 so as to make it

clearer.

Article 4 "Observation units and statistical populations"

It was suggested that the first and the second paragraph should be swapped, and that the word

"private" (before "households") should be introduced also in the first paragraph. Eurostat

agreed and will implement these suggestions.

One country raised the matter that the exclusion of people living in common households from

the target population is conceptually wrong and the law should not limit countries from using

the correct solution when they have the possibility. While conceptually all residents should

indeed be included, all other countries agreed that, for practical and comparability reasons,

6

the best choice would be to cover private households only. Bilateral contacts will be held in

order to find solutions with the country concerned.

Article 5 "Technical specifications of data collections"

Eurostat introduced the aim of Article 5, which is the detailed specification of the data

collections and also introduces now the harmonization of common variables across surveys as

agreed in the DSS.

Some Member States commented on paragraph 5.1.f., as they were concerned that the current

formulation may imply input harmonization and should be looked at having in mind the

principle of subsidiarity. Eurostat replied that better harmonization of some very important

concepts is an important objective for the whole ESS, and that having provisions in the

regulation regarding this topic is a way to allow for progress on this objective. Eurostat also

underlined the importance of, for instance, the order of questions for data comparability, in

particular in the domain of labour market.

When asked if it is possible to include the deadlines in the implementing acts, Eurostat

replied that as they are an important element of the cost, the DSS has already considered that

they need to be included in the basic Regulation.

Article 6 "Standards for transmission and exchange of information" was supported.

Article 7 "Terminology"

Eurostat explained that the purpose of this article is not to provide definitions for the

concepts, as this will be done by the proper implementing acts. Generally, definitions in

existence are used. The purpose of the article is to explain what it is to be understood in the

context of this regulation.

In response to suggestions from some countries, Eurostat will try to ensure, where

appropriate, that the same concept is not defined in a different way in different domains.

Article 8 "Data sources"

Paragraph 1b was considered as dealing with "methods" rather than "data sources", therefore

it was suggested (and agreed) to rename the article "Data sources and methods".

Some Member States expressed worries about the constraints put on the use of administrative

data in the current formulation. It is however already the case that administrative data should

be processed and transformed so as to fulfil the requirements. Some delegations also referred

in the context of the article 8 to the provisions of article 51f.

As the data is sometimes "modelled"/ "estimated", and not "collected" as such, it has been

suggested (and agreed) to replace this word in paragraph 1 with a wording equivalent to

"provided".

Article 9 “Periodicity of the data collection” and Annex IV

Eurostat specified that the periodicity of AES in the IESS Regulation is now proposed to be

every 6 years. This proposal is to be considered as a trade-off with extension of age band and

precision requirements (see annex II).

7

Both the exchange of views forms and discussions in the DSS reflected strong concerns of

Member States for the use of delegated acts for amending the periodicity of data collections,

as this represents an important element of costs. Other issues raised by Member States were:

the periodicity of ICT: some Member States considered that it should be less often

(e.g. every two years) as figures are rather stable while others underlined that it

depends on which information is collected;

the periodicity of HBS set as 6 years has been questioned in regards to the needs of

the HICP;

the funding of the additional burden implied by the current draft of the regulation.

Eurostat explained that the periodicity of ICT is under discussion in the ICT Working Group.

This will deliver recommendations and the DSS, BSDG and ESSC are expected to be

consulted in February 2016.

As for HBS, Eurostat clarified that the 6 years were introduced at the request of the DSS in

order to avoid periods of peaks. This issue will be further discussed with HICP colleagues

and the planning foreseen in the regulation (article 3) will take into account these constraints.

Eurostat explained that the use of delegated acts could enable also the decrease of periodicity

and would allow adapting better to the future. Eurostat took note of the concerns of Member

States regarding the use of delegated acts for periodicity. These concerns will be reflected at

the ESSC level.

Article 9b “Data transmission and deadlines” and Annex V

Eurostat introduced the changes for article 9b which concern: the title; paragraph 2 which

refers to common rules for validation and the annex 5.

The DSS expressed some concern for setting the implementation year to 2019 and suggested

to put ‘x years after implementation’. Eurostat explained that the usual legal practice is to

include a clear date for implementation of a regulation for transparency reasons and to

respond to priorities.

Further concerns were expressed for the 6-years longitudinal panel in SILC and possible

effect on the quality of the cross-sectional data. Eurostat and ESAC emphasised its

importance for users and policy makers in light of several studies that showed that the 4 years

do not provide sufficient information. Eurostat took the view that the major costs are linked

to non-response in the first year; therefore the impact on costs of the 6-years longitudinal

panel is limited. The selective attrition bias over the rotation waves already exists and should

be already now addressed properly. The DSS was asked to reconsider their position and find

a compromise on the basis of different practices already in place in some Member States.

Also for this article a large majority of DSS Members expressed strong concerns about the

use of delegated acts. Eurostat reiterated that the principle for delegated acts is related to the

need to anticipate that techniques and tools will evolve and this needs to be taken into

account in the regulation. A possible compromise would be to reconsider the use of delegated

acts for transmission deadlines provided that the ambitious targets in Annex 5 are supported.

Regarding deadlines, some Member States asked to reconsider the deadlines for HBS and

TUS. For LFS, one Member State asked for a prolongation to 29 days concerning monthly

8

unemployment figures. Eurostat agreed that the possibility of a longer deadline for monthly

unemployment could be considered in specific cases. For health and education, the deadlines

are the ones in the current regulation in force so no change is foreseen.

Given that several Member States raised the issue of the tight deadlines foreseen for SILC in

Annex 5, point 6 on the agenda concerning “Timeliness of social statistics on inequalities”

was discussed here.

Eurostat explained that the new deadlines introduced for SILC are related to the strong need

expressed at the level of the European Commission and DG EMPL and there is a need to

switch from the producer to the user view. Data on income are needed almost one year

earlier because of the needs for the European Semester: the early mechanism starts in

November and country specific recommendations are done in the beginning of the year.

Therefore the new requirements are centred on the needs for the European Semester: flash

estimates to be provided in June N+1 for the start of the Semester and final data/good

provisional data for the country recommendations.

This issue was discussed in the WG of SILC in June and a consultation was done during the

summer. The results show already an important progress in this direction and there are

ongoing efforts with the SILC teams to reach this objective: 24 countries available currently

in September N+2, but for year 2018 (later in some cases) 15 countries will deliver by end

N+1 and 24 by March N+2.

There was a general support of the DSS for meeting these objectives, even if they are

demanding. The DSS recognized that improved timeliness is necessary for increasing the

credibility and relevance of poverty statistics. Some DSS Members asked Eurostat to make a

clear distinction between provisional and final data, in line with the timetable for the

European Semester. Some countries reiterated that the use of administrative data which are

available later makes this target very difficult. It raises concerns also for the duration of the

fieldwork period and in some countries will require major changes in the organization of the

survey.

The DSS Members expressed a preference to give priority to the improvement of the cross

sectional component of EU-SILC (including timeliness) rather than the longitudinal part. DG

EMPL clarified that policy needs are at different level: cross-sectional data for basic

monitoring and longitudinal data to understand structural developments.

The need of funding was reiterated by Member States and both Eurostat and DG EMPL

expressed their willingness to support Member States. The possibility of a significant

increase of funding from DG EMPL towards to the ESSC is currently under discussion. It

was agreed to start a phase of bilateral discussions with the countries that encounter particular

difficulties and to analyse possible solutions (e.g. anticipate fieldwork, use of partial

administrative data, provisional estimates). Eurostat clarified also that derogations could be

envisaged for countries with particular problems. The difference between provisional and

final data could be discussed on a case by case basis.

Article 10 “Sampling frames“

Some Member States proposed that in the first paragraph which refers to an ‘ideal situation’

to replace “shall” by “should”. Eurostat agreed to check with the legal service and to

introduce “should” with respect to the sampling frame coverage.

9

Also in this case the major concern of DSS Members was in relation to specific domains such

as HBS and TUS which would need a transition period. Eurostat will consider the possibility

of a two-stage approach in the case of sampling frames requirements.

Article 11 “Quality”

Eurostat clarified that for this draft there were two modifications for this article: paragraph 3

now makes reference to the current Regulation and the introduction of transmission deadlines

for quality reports. There were several wording amendments suggested by Member States:

Concerning the frequency of quality reports, Eurostat clarified that the main

purpose is to reduce the number of quality reports for domains like SILC and LFS

where several reports by year exist.

Rephrase paragraph 6 in a less demanding manner while still ensuring that

Eurostat will receive clarifications and explanations necessary for evaluating

quality.

A country suggested referring to both data and metadata.

Article 12 ‘Feasibility and pilot studies’

For this article now the obligation is mainly on the side of Eurostat and the implication of

Member States is referred to as ‘cooperation’. One country suggested that a recital is

introduced to explain the role of feasibility and of the word “cooperate”. Eurostat agreed to

check with the legal service the possibility to introduce this recital. Two other suggestions

were made by the DSS Members:

to drop or to replace ‘amongst other issues’;

to find an alternative formulation less “open-ended” in which to refer to article 13

on “Financing” and introduce some limits.

Eurostat reiterated the importance of having a representative number of countries for

feasibility and pilot studies. Eurostat will prepare a list of feasibility studies for approval by

the ESSC to ensure both full transparency and the cooperation of Member States in the

future.

Article 13 “Financing”

DSS Members raised several issues related to the financing of increased costs due to the

introduction of the future IESS regulation:

in the current form the number of ad-hoc modules financed will be reduced;

the introduction of new domains not previously regulated that will require many

convergence activities;

the simplification of grant procedures, maybe the use of lump sums;

10

the availability of funding for programs in which EFTA/EEA countries participate.

Eurostat will further discuss, with the relevant financial services, the scope of this article.

Article 14 ‘Exercise of the delegation’

It was agreed to add in paragraph 2 “additional burden or costs”.

Article 16 ‘Derogations

Member States raised two issues: the maximum duration of 3 years is incompatible with the

periodicity of 6 years for some collections; there may be incompatibility between articles 16

and 17.3 Eurostat took note of these points.

Annex 1

The DSS Members expressed general support for the mainstream domains. There were some

specific concerns for the topic “income, consumption and wealth, including debts’. Some

countries emphasized also that there are important differences among domains in terms of

level of details and progress; some are more advanced while others are in an early stage of

discussion (HBs, TUS). Some DSS Members suggested that the harmonization work should

to be done simultaneously with the development of the legislation. Eurostat provided

explanations concerning the choice of topics (e.g. wealth to be focused on vulnerability in

strong connection with SILC main focus). The different granularity of the areas is often

related to the nature of surveys: SILC is a multidimensional data collection, while health is

more monothematic. Eurostat also informed on the progress on harmonization which is

ongoing.

Annex 2

Eurostat introduced Annex 2 which focuses on the variance side in order to give Member

States the choice of the sampling design. Several Member Sates consider that more

explanations are needed on how the parameters were chosen for each domain and for some

technical aspects (e.g. the choice of the population size in terms of households). Particular

concerns were mentioned in relation to the precision requirements at regional level (for

SILC) and for specific domains (HBS and TUS). Concerning regional data in SILC, Eurostat

clarified that it was accepted that data at regional level is needed and there are ongoing

bilateral discussions with countries to find solutions for problematic subjects. DG REGIO

and Eurostat expressed willingness to support countries.

As regards the AES in the IESS Regulation, and in response to country comments, Eurostat

first reminded that the proposal introduced at the DSS meeting in February 2015 was the

following: periodicity of 4 years and extension of age band from 25-64 to 18-69. In addition

two options were proposed for precision requirements: option 1 whereby precision is

identical throughout age band 18-69 and option 2 whereby precision for 18-24 is lower than

for 25-69 (less costly option). A majority of countries agreed with periodicity of 4 years, age

band 18-64 and option 2. After further reflection in the light of combining both policy needs

and data quality, Eurostat now favors the proposed “package”: periodicity of 6 years, age

11

band 18-69 and option 1. It was also reminded that data collection on participation in

education and training in the last 12 months is being introduced in LFS, balancing thus the

need for more frequent data from AES. Finally, it was outlined that annex 2 of the document

submitted to the DSS in February 2015 for the future of AES provides the indicative

estimation of sample sizes for both options and each country, as compiled under the formula

of precision requirements in annex II. They have to be compared with the sample sizes

requested for both AES 2011 and AES 2016 which, under current legislation, shall be

established on the precision of requirements that shall not require effective national sample

sizes to be larger than 5 000 individuals.

Eurostat showed openness to discussion on specific national situations resulting from the

implementation of harmonized methods for determining precision requirements across

surveys.

The DSS took note of the explanations provided by Eurostat. Member States are encouraged

to send written comments on specific issues. Derogations could also be considered in line

with article 16 provided that they are properly justified. Bilateral discussions with Member

States will continue in order to ensure support from Eurostat on the difficult points.

Annex 3

Eurostat introduced the main sample characteristics. Some members reiterated their concerns

about the introduction of the 6-year panel in SILC. It was also emphasized that paragraph 2b

(sample overlap) is conditional on 2a (six-year rotation scheme) and thus on the length of the

panel in SILC. An important conclusion was that if prioritization needs to be done, then and

subject to users’ views, Eurostat is inclined to give priority to timeliness.

C. Opinion

1. Concerning the Impact Assessment of IESS, Eurostat urged NSIs to respond to the

consultation questionnaire by the deadline of 30 September. Interviews are scheduled/to be

scheduled with a selected number of NSIs. Eurostat took note of the concerns expressed by

several DSS Members in relation to the publication of the results relating to costs and their

comparability, and will address them.

2. The DSS generally welcomed the revised draft of IESS and supported many of the

changes which had been made since the previous discussions in February 2015, which

included drafting improvements proposed by the DSS. The DSS still has a number of

concerns, as listed below:

– Several countries reiterated their concerns with HBS and TUS stating that they should not

be regulated in IESS, while other Member States stressed the need to regulate them due to

their importance in various domains.

– Including these two domains in the regulation and giving sufficient time over a number of

years for adapting while working on modernising them, was considered as a possible

compromise.

– Eurostat took note of the strong opposition expressed by most Member States about the

use of delegate acts on the issue of periodicity (article 9 and Annex IV).

12

– Concerning the timeliness of EU-SILC data, the DSS supported the objectives set,

including the deadlines included in Annex V, even if they are demanding. Significant

work as well as bilateral discussions will be needed to meet the deadlines. Also a clear

distinction should be made between provisional and final data. Member States expressed

strong opposition about the use of delegated acts concerning deadlines (Art 9b and Annex

V). The issue of funding is also an important aspect.

– A number of DSS Members underlined that the 6-year longitudinal extension of SILC

raised problems of quality and resources and need for prioritisation taking also into

account users' views. If prioritisation would be made between timeliness and the 6-year

rotation panel, the DSS considered that prominence should be given to timeliness.

– Household income is not included in LFS. Instead, the quality of the take home pay from

work will be improved.

– Several countries expressed concerns with the annual frequency of the ICT household

survey, the input harmonisation provision in Article 5(1) f, and the compulsory nature of

Member States' cooperation on feasibility studies.

– Regarding Health and Disability (GALI), several DSS Members expressed strong concern

about inclusion of GALI in all EU surveys. Including GALI together with “self-perceived

health” in the Labour Force Survey only was put forward as a possible compromise.

– Clarifications were given concerning the other annexes of the draft Regulation. In relation

to precision requirements, further bilateral discussions will be held.

Point 4.2

Policy needs of the social protection Committee on health issues

A. Presentation

A comprehensive presentation of policy needs from the Social Protection Committee (SPC)

in the area of health was given by Mr Rudy Van Dam, one of the two SPC Vice-Presidents.

B. Discussion

The SPC gave detailed clarifications on the statistical data needed. In addition, the SPC is of

the opinion that the proposal of introducing GALI in EU surveys is appropriate in the light of

policy needs.

C. Opinion

1. The DSS took note of the presentation, by the Social Protection Committee (SPC), of their

policy needs on health issues. The DSS recognized the importance of comparable and timely

health statistics in various domains, for policy and monitoring purposes in particular in the

context of the European Semester and the Joint Assessment Framework on Health, and for

research purposes. The SPC invited Member States that do not provide mortality by socio-

economic status/education level to consider the possibility of provision in the future.

13

Point 4.3

GALI as a core variable

A. Presentation

Eurostat reminded the DSS that the proposal to include GALI as well as a health variable in

all ESS surveys is embedded into the modernisation of social surveys project, discussed

through the IESS Regulation, and more specifically the future of disability statistics. A

dedicated Task Force was set up to review in particular the methodological quality of GALI

and the final report was provided to the DSS.

Eurostat discussed the arguments put forward by countries not in favour: as regards burden

on ESS surveys, including LFS, the LFS ad-hoc modules on disability would be

discontinued, the dedicated survey on disability made in 2013 would not be repeated and the

two variables could be collected in ICT every 2 to 3 years. The introduction of new variables

(education every 2 years, alternating with GALI and health) is without additional global

burden on LFS. Pilot studies for GALI in LFS are welcome – 2 countries will be awarded

grants in 2015 – in the 2 to 3 coming years. It should be also noted that GALI is already

implemented in LFS by 2 countries and that some countries already collect a variable similar

to GALI. The use of proxies in LFS is an issue, in fact beyond the GALI variable. Finally, it

was mentioned that the use of administrative sources (national official recognition of

disability), although already available in some countries through LFS, is not appropriate for

comparable data on disability.

B. Discussion

The ESAC representative strongly supported Eurostat proposal arguing that health is a major

component in inequalities and disability is a factor of exclusion from labour market.

Countries confirmed in general their position expressed in the exchange of views forms, with

a number of countries expressing concerns about the inclusion of GALI in all surveys.

Countries also welcomed the work done by the GALI Task Force. One country was not fully

convinced by the Task Force report. The need to discuss the report recommendations in the

relevant Working Groups was highlighted.

As a response to these comments, Eurostat specified that although GALI is only one way of

measuring disability, its development and implementation for EHIS and SILC with detailed

guideline has been agreed within the ESS for a long time. The Task Force confirmed the

robustness of GALI and recommended to keep unchanged the concepts underlying the

variable. The operationalization of GALI in surveys other than EHIS and SILC could be

discussed (routed version).

One country asked for more information on the link between the UN Convention and the

statistical work at the EU level. Eurostat reminded that each Party which signed the

UNCRPD has “Statistical reporting obligations”. In this respect it seems appropriate that the

same national data source, harmonised at EU level, is used for both the national reporting and

the EU reporting.

14

The representative from DG EMPL thanked Eurostat for the proposals put forward and

encouraged countries to continue discussing them at national level.

In its final remarks, Eurostat mentioned that a compromise to Eurostat proposal could be the

inclusion of GALI, together with a health introductory variable (Self-reported health), “only”

in LFS.

C. Opinion

1. The DSS recognised that comparable data on disability is a priority. The need for such

data is strongly supported by SPC and ESAC.

2. The DSS welcomed the report by the GALI Task Force and supported its discussion in the

relevant Working Groups, especially as regards the implementation of the recommendations.

Several DSS Members expressed strong concern about inclusion of GALI in all EU surveys.

Point 4.4/4.5

Elements for input harmonisation for employment and unemployment data

A. Presentation

Eurostat presented the situation as regards harmonisation of the LFS employment and

unemployment data. Currently an output approach is mainly used (with input harmonisation

limited to an operational definition of unemployment and 12 'so called' principles) but

LAMAS recognised in 2011 that more input harmonisation is required to improve cross-

country comparability. It is planned to add an operational definition of employment and flow

charts in the future LFS regulation, and to develop a model questionnaire to remain outside

the legal framework.

To illustrate the importance of the order of the questions concerning the main labour force

statuses, France explained in details the consequence of a re-structuring of the LFS questionnaire

implemented with effect from 2013. The change of the order (asking the question of the wish to

work before the question on job search) had a significant effect on unemployment, moving

persons from unemployment to the so-called supplementary indicators (known as Halo in

France), moving persons from simple inactivity (Inactivité pure) to the potential additional labour

force (Halo pur).

B. Discussion

The DSS supported the importance of having a model questionnaire for employment and

unemployment but not in the LFS legal act. The need to take account of the mixed-mode of

data collection was stressed. DSS Members were split on the Eurostat proposal to include

some flows charts in the LFS legal basis. While recognising that other elements (such as data

collection modes) may also have a significant impact on comparability, it is however

important that at least the order of questions should be the same for all countries. Whether or

not the 12 principles would be included in the future LFS legal basis will also need to be

clarified.

15

C. Opinion

1. The DSS took note of the presentation how the order of questions affected LFS

unemployment by France and of the current situation and Eurostat future plans regarding

unemployment and employment.

Point 5

Work of the Task Force on future census

A. Presentation

Eurostat provided information on the activities of the Task Force on future EU

Censuses and summarised the progress made by the Task Force regarding the work on both

the 2021 census data collection and the post-2021 census strategy. In particular the following

was presented:

Defining the outputs of the 2021 EU census data collection

Information on the current technical proposals for a limited set of 2021 census data

geo-referenced to a 1km² grid

Outline of the timetable for future work on both the 2021 census data collection and

the post-2021 census strategy.

Statistical disclosure control for 2021 census outputs

Availability of financial support for Member States in setting up the 2021 Census in

various possible forms: ESSNet on Multisource Statistics, ESSNet on Disclosure

Control, Centre of Excellence on Administrative Data, grants of ESS.VIP.ADMIN

project, specific census grants.

B. Discussion

A number of countries supported the project and thanked for the work done so far.

C. Opinion

The DSS took note of the progress report, and supported the plans for the future work of the

Task Force.

Point 6A

Data gaps in labour market statistics

A. Presentation

Eurostat presented the document on data gaps in labour market statistics identified by main

users (European System of Central Banks and Commission DGs). The document was

discussed by the European Statistical Advisory Committee (ESAC) on 1 July 2015.

16

The identified gaps concerns the Labour Force Survey (with gaps in relation to geographic

labour mobility; flows data; main seasonally adjusted indicators; income information;

confidence intervals; regulated professions and coherence with ESA 2010 employment data),

Job Vacancy Statistics (for which full coverage is not achieved in four Member States),

Structure of Earnings Surveys (with improvements required on frequency, timeliness and

inclusion of nationality) and minimum wages where differentiation by age would be needed.

B. Discussion

The issue of main seasonally adjusted indicators was discussed. The need to consult with

Member States on breaks corrections given that these data are published nationally in some

countries was stressed.

The ECB explained that a note “ESCB Policy-relevant Data Gaps in Labour Market

Statistics” (22 April 2015), prepared by the ESCB Working Group on General Economic

Statistics (WGGES), was approved by the ESCB Statistics Committee (STC) and supported

by the ESCB Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). While users feel well served with labour

market statistics, some gaps remain. For the ECB, the gaps in priority order are the following:

(1) Job Vacancy Statistics; (2) Flows data; (3) Access to micro-data; (4) labour mobility and

(5) seasonal adjustment.

The data gaps have also been discussed with users' representatives in the European Statistical

Advisory Committee (ESAC).

Both ESAC and EIGE highlighted the importance of labour mobility, standard errors of

estimates being also a key aspect for ESAC.

C. Opinion

The DSS took note of the identified priorities and supported the particular importance of job

vacancy statistics. The DSS also took note of the on-going actions on several issues. It was

noted that ESAC will report on its discussion about these priorities at the ESSC of September

2015. The DSS will further discuss these topics in the future.

Point 7

Compliance monitoring

A. Presentation

Eurostat presented the current situation in terms of compliance monitoring for the legislative

acts in the area of social statistics and for the reference period from 1 August 2014 to 31 July

2015.

Overall, compliance with legislation in terms of timeliness, quality and completeness can be

considered from satisfactory to good for most regulations, and there have been significant

improvements over recent years. However there are some cases where further effort is needed

or there is a risk that Eurostat will send a compliance monitoring letter in autumn 2015. Are

concerned 13 countries for Job Vacancy Statistics (reg. 453/2008), 7 for asylum, residence

17

permits and EIL (reg. 862/2007), 4 for SILC (reg. 1177/2003) and LCI (reg. 450/2003), 2 for

ESSPROS (reg. 458/2007) and 1 country for European demographic statistics (reg.

1260/2013).

B. Discussion

-

C. Opinion

1. Eurostat stressed the importance of the compliance monitoring exercises for the purpose

of timeliness and quality of the data produced in the ESS.

2. The DSS took note of the report presented by Eurostat.

Point 8

Feedback from Working Groups

A. Presentation

Eurostat presented the main outcome of the income and living conditions working group

meeting (June 2015) relevant in the IESS context:

There is significant progress on the SILC content (core and periodic components,

variables for detailed topics, Module 2017 as test (regulation + ESSC agreement). The

next TF will take place in October,

Concerning timeliness, users have high expectations. Eurostat has put in place two

strands: improved delivery and estimations techniques (flash estimates),

Concerning regional precision, there is a new policy context post 2020 that intends to

include AROPE in fund allocations. Therefore, there is a need for regional data about

2018 and then yearly.

On these issues, the ILC working group has been consulted over the summer.

Eurostat gave some feedback from the discussion in the Population and housing census

Working Group that took place in Luxembourg from 19-20 May 2015.

The Working Group provided input as requested to the task force on future Censuses

(see point 5 of the agenda).

It requested to have a more detailed analysis of extracted queries and the profile of

Census Hub users.

NSIs asked for more information about the census validation procedures used in other

Member States.

Eurostat gave some feedback from the discussion during the meeting of the Population

Working Group that took place in Luxembourg from 8-9 June 2015. In particular the

following was discussed:

18

The result of the first data collection under requirements of reg. 1260/2013 and

specific issues stemming from that.

Proposal for a new data collection workflow primarily based Csv files with provision

for remote validation by countries and automatic rejection (based on commonly

agreed rules).

On provision of land area with demography data, if status quo should be upheld or a

new automated methodology based on satellite photos introduces. Consultation of the

countries showed mixed responses among Member States. The issues were taken over

by experts for special statistics.

Working Group on Education and Training Statistics

Eurostat mentioned the four items which were discussed: implementation of ISCED 2011 in

ESS data collections from 2014 onwards, both in the “UOE” data collection and in LFS from

which the EU headline indicators 2020 are compiled; the results of the 2014 pilot data

collection on the basis of ESS agreements for learning mobility (IVET and youth in general);

the modernisation of social surveys including the future of the AES and finally work

launched by Eurostat as regards timeliness and quality of education expenditure data.

Working Group on Social Protection Statistics

Eurostat recalled the top agreed priorities: improvement of the current ESSPROS, as well as

its links to national accounts. Other priorities relate to data collection on beneficiaries,

beyond pension beneficiaries, and development of the so-called enlarged net benefit module.

Meeting of the Working Group on Public Health Statistics will take place end November

2015 and meeting of the Working Group on Accidents at Work was postponed to 2016.

B. Discussion

-

C. Opinion

1. The DSS took note of the reports presented by Eurostat.

Agenda item 9

GDP and beyond (CG2) action plan

A. Presentation

Eurostat informed the DSS on "GDP and beyond" Eurostat action plan (final report for 2012-

2014) and plan for 2015-2017 (2020)). It was discussed during the 25th Meeting of the

European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) on 20-21 May. As an input for second round

discussions, the ESSC has asked opinions from the relevant Directors' Groups.

19

The GDP and beyond" Eurostat action plan includes description of achieved results and a list

of foreseen activities for 2015-2017 (2020). In 2009 the European Commission

Communication on ‘GDP and beyond – measuring progress in a changing world’ set out a

roadmap of short- and medium-term actions to move towards indicators that could

complement GDP. In 2011, ESSC adopted report "GDP and beyond- measuring progress in a

changing world' proposing concrete actions to be carried out by 2020 within the three

following pillars: 1) Strengthening the household perspective and distributional aspects of

income, consumption and wealth; 2) Multidimensional measurement of the quality of life;

and 3) Environmental sustainability. The proposed Eurostat action plan for 2015-2017(2020)

follows up the recommendations from the final report of the Sponsorship Group. The

foreseen activities largely relates to the foreseen further developments of social statistics, in

particular, quality and timeliness of social indicators, better measurement of quality of life,

topics related to more integration among surveys, and continuation of the work on links

between household surveys and national accounts for household sector.

B. Discussion

-

C. Opinion

1. The DSS took note of the report presented by Eurostat

2. Eurostat invited DSS Members to send written comments by 2 October to Eurostat for the

purpose of preparing the DSS contribution to a paper intended for the ESSC in November

2015.

Agenda item 10

Grant procedures: use of lump sums

A. Presentation

Eurostat gave a short overview of the state of play regarding the potential switch to using

lump sums when handing out grants for collection of LFS ad hoc modules. Eurostat has been

obliged to stop development work based on historical cost information due to lack of quality

and will instead use the applications for grants for the AHM 2016. Eurostat will prepare a

proposal on this basis in the months to come.

B. Discussion

During the discussion, issues on the coordination with the Directors of Resources, the sample

size of the ad-hoc module as well as the need to take on board some key factors influencing

the costs (mode of data collection; additional household sample for register countries for

example) were raised.

20

C. Opinion

1. The DSS took note of the report on Eurostat’s on-going methodological work on lump

sums.

2. Eurostat will contact bilaterally some countries for further information, and will keep the

DSS informed about further developments

21

List of participants

National delegates

Belgium Lydia MERCKX Statistics Belgium

Bulgaria Magdalena KOSTOVA National Statistical Institute

Czech Republic Michaela KLENHOVA Czech Statistical Office

Denmark Niels PLOUG Danmarks Statistik

Germany Ruth BRAND Statistisches Bundesamt

Andreas BÜDINGER Landesamtes Hessen Statistics

Sabine BECHTOLD Statistisches Bundesamt

Estonia Kutt KOMMEL Statistics Estonia

Greece (not represented) National Statistical Service of Greece

Spain Alfredo CRISTÓBAL Instituto Nacional de Estadística

France Fabrice LENGLART Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques

Croatia Dubravka ROGIC-HADZALIC Central Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Croatia

Iceland Hrafnhildur ARNKELSDÓTTIR Statistics Iceland

Ireland Richie McMAHON Central Statistics Office

Donald Kelly Central Statistics Office

Italy Saverio GAZZELLONI Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

Cyprus Koulia ONISIFOROU Statistical Service of Cyprus

Latvia Miranda BEHMANE Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia

Lithuania Dalia AMBROZAITIENE Statistics Lithuania

Luxembourg Jérôme HURY Service Central de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques

Hungary Zsolt NÉMETH Hungarian Central Statistical Office

Malta Etienne CARUANA National Statistics Office

Netherlands Paul VAN DER LAAN Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek

Netherlands Marleen VERBRUGGEN Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek

Norway Elisabeth RONNING Statistics Norway

Austria Josef KYTIR Statistik Österreich

Poland Agnieszka ZGIERSKA Central Statistical Office

Portugal Emilia SALEIRO Instituto Nacional de Estatìstica

Romania Silvia PISICA National Institute of Statistics

Slovenia Danilo DOLENC Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia

Slovakia Ludmila IVANCIKOVA Statisitical Ofiice of Slovak Republic

Finland Jar TARKOMA Statistics Finland

Sweden Inger EKLUND Statistiska Centralbyran/Statistics Sweden

Switzerland Markus SCHWYN Bundesamt für Statistik BFS

United Kingdom Guy GOODWIN Office for National Statistics

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Lidija KOSTOVSKA State Statistical Office

Albania Emira GALANXHI Institute of Statistics

Serbia Snezana LAKCEVIC Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia

Turkey Cengiz ERDOĞAN Turkish Statistical Institute

Bosnia & Herzegovina Slavka POPOVIC Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kosovo under UNSCR

1244/99

Bashkim BELLAQA Statistical Office of Kosovo

ECB Gabriel QUIRÓS European Central Bank

ECB Carlos SÁNCHEZ MUÑOZ European Central Bank

ESAC Irena KOTOWSKA European Statistical Advisory Committee

EIGE Virginija LANGBAKK European Institute for Gender Equality

EIGE Jolanta REINGARDE European Institute for Gender Equality

EFTA Andrea SCHELLER

EUROFOUND (not represented) European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

SPC Rudi VAN DAM Vice Chair ISG-SPG

European Commission Eurostat Dir F Gallo GUEYE Chairman

Adam WRONSKI Head of Unit F2

Anne CLEMENCEAU Head of Unit F3

Jean-Louis MERCY Head of Unit F4

Christine COIN Head of Unit F5

Pascal WOLFF Unit F5

Giuliano AMERINI Unit F5

Mariana RADIKOVA Secretariat

Gabriel SANZ Secretariat

DG EAC Luca PAPPALARDO Education and Culture

DG SANTE Stefan SCHRECK Health and food safety

22