EUROSTAT
Directorate F: Social Statistics and Information Society
Unit F-3: Living conditions and social protection statistics /
Doc. Eurostat/F/08/DSS/12/08/EN
meeting of the european directors of social statistics
luxembourg, 22-23 september 2008
BECH building, room AMPERE
Minutes
Point 1: Introduction
The chairman, Mr Glaude, welcomed the participants and underlined that in 2008 the timing for document delivery was better than the previous year.
He informed the participants that Mr Walter Radermacher, was appointed General Director of Eurostat on 1st August. As former Head of the German Statistical Office, Mr Radermacher has a strong experience in the ESS.
The minutes of the previous DSS meeting and the agenda were adopted.
Point 2: Strategic issues
Point 2.1: Report from the SDG
Presentation
As agreed by the DSS, the Strategic Development Group holds 2 meetings a year (January/February and July).
The last SDG meeting was held on 3rd July 2008. Several points were tackled during the meeting:
– Information on the renewed social agenda: On 2-3 July, the Commission put forward a comprehensive and ambitious package of initiatives. It represents a new commitment to social Europe and consists of an integrated approach bringing together various policies. Building on a strong base of past achievements of social Europe, the Renewed Social Agenda launched by Commissioner Barroso aims to adapt the EU's policies to new social realities and trends, without changing the fundamental goals of social Europe. It is built around 3 pillars: opportunities, access and solidarity. In the view of the launch of the renewed social agenda, a lot of data is necessary to design, monitor and assess policies in the social area, and this is an incentive for European statistics to produce good and comparable data.
– Point "beyond GDP": Mr Lerais, from BEPA[1], presented the work already carried out on the "beyond GDP" issue, which was presented during the conference devoted to this topic and organised jointly by OECD and the European Commission, in November 2007 (http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/). Besides, Eurostat presented its ongoing feasibility study on the measure of wellbeing (existing approaches to measure well-being are being gathered and examined; then a choice of existing indicators will be made, including possibly subjective/attitudinal approaches).
– PIAAC was discussed: though it is an OECD project for which non-NSIs partners are in forefront (e.g. universities), the Commission is involved in the project (it partly funds it) and the ESS as well to some extent. In particular, a need for coordination within the ESS was underlined. Overlaps with existing data collection (e.g AES) must be avoided.
– A contribution from NO on the response burden on NSIs from EU requests was presented.
– The state of play of the core variables and the EHS projects were presented (cf points 2.3 and 3.1 of the DSS agenda).
– Then, new challenges and prospects in the field of migration statistics were discussed (cf point 6 of the DSS agenda).
– Finally, financial issues were tackled: the participants were informed about the ongoing discussions on overhead of the Eurostat's grant procedure.
Discussion
During the discussion, PT asked for clarification about the respective roles of OECD and Eurostat in the PIAAC project.
Eurostat specified that OECD has the lead; Eurostat is involved in the exchanges (sharing of good practices, discussions in order to avoid overlaps etc…)
IE highlighted that in many countries private companies are in charge of PIAAC, which may affect negatively the quality of data collected. Currently, IE does not participate in PIAAC. If in future it would participate, the NSI would be in charge of the project. AT specified besides that PIAAC is a very difficult project, with an important risk of bias (vs PISA, easier to implement since it was carried out in schools). FR highlighted moreover that, given the complexity of PIAAC (which involves tests of individuals' skills) an important work on the methodology is necessary to ensure comparability of results. Therefore, IE, FR and AT pleaded for a greater implication of NSIs in PIAAC.
Eurostat specified that given the huge amount of work, compromise had to be done, and choice was made not to take the lead, nor to propose any module in the project. Eurostat took due note that though currently a minority (8) of European NSIs participates in PIAAC, there is a call for a stronger implication of the ESS.
Conclusion
An exchange of good practices will be organised by Eurostat.
Point 2.2: Programme of LFS ad hoc modules 2013 – 2015
Presentation
In view of the length of the legislative process and the time needed for the preparation of the ad hoc modules the discussion on the programme of modules for the years 2013 -2015 needs to be launched now. Following discussions between Eurostat and DG EMPL a Commission proposal was prepared:
2013: Accidents at work and other work-related health problems
2014: Labour market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants
2015: Worker adaptability and work organisation
Eurostat presented this proposal to the LAMAS working group on 17 September 2008. At the same time Eurostat invited Member States to make alternative proposals. Three countries (GR, FR and NL) suggested alternative topics to LAMAS (underemployment, working time, employability). Eurostat informed the DSS that the Commission would reflect on these suggestions and present a possibly revised programme to the working group. The plan was to have the final discussion at the June 2009 LAMAS meeting and to submit the draft Regulation to SPC in September 2009.
The DSS was also informed that Eurostat would provide the necessary arrangements to share information within the ESS on the purely national programmes of ad hoc modules.
Discussion
The DSS welcomed the Commission's approach to consider alternative proposals coming from Member States. Some Member States expressed concerns that the module on migrants was included before the evaluation of the 2008 module on the same subject was completed. Eurostat underlined the particular political importance of the migrants module. Eurostat was strongly committed to an in-depth evaluation of the 2008 exercise.
Conclusions
The DSS supported the way forward as outlined by Eurostat.
Point 2.3: the EHS project: state of play
Presentation:
Eurostat presented the latest developments of the EHS project.
Many changes in the project have occurred since the last DSS meeting.
The aim of the project remains the same, i.e. both to rationalise the existing and developing data collections and to fulfil timely policy needs. Concerning policy needs, one outcome of consultations carried out with Commission DGs since September 2007 was that modules on specific populations (e.g. migrants, disabled or elderly people, early school leavers…) would be needed. But given the considerable methodological work necessary to implement such modules, it is not planned to include such modules during the first years of the project.
For that purpose, EHS is an integrated and coordinated programme designed as a consistent system of social statistical modules, including a core social variables module, regular annual modules (ICT and EHIS-minimodule), regular 5-year modules (AES, possibly the comprehensive EHIS, other regular modules…) and annual ad-hoc modules (called "NCN" modules) in order to respond to policy DGs needs.
The core variables module and the EHIS-minimodule will be 66%-funded for 4 years ("capacity building" principle). The NCN modules will receive a permanent 90%-funding.
Concerning the implementation of the project, countries have a great degree of freedom, providing that they fulfil some basic requirements (maximum average interview duration, delivery of ICT and NCN data by the end of the year of fieldwork, minimum effective sample sizes, microlevel linkage between the core variables module and each module included in EHS).
Eurostat proposes a structure designed in order to be as efficient as possible and to achieve economy of scales and timely delivery of results. This structure is composed of 3 layers running in parallel. The 3rd layer is dedicated to regular 5-year modules and periodically possible long NCN modules.
The proposed structure enables a great flexibility, both in term of content, of sample size and of mode of data collection.
Eurostat plans to launch the project in 2010. The NCN selected for the first year of implementation deals with consumer empowerment. This module, which would fulfil an important and urgent policy need, is currently being developed by DG Sanco and Eurostat.
Discussion:
During the discussion, the majority of the countries underlined the substancial need for rationalisation in the field of social statistics and welcomed the project.
However, some difficulties were raised and some points had to be clarified.
– Methodological issues:
§ Maximum duration: CZ expressed reservations about the maximum mean duration of 45’ allowed in the project, but it was reminded that this was accepted by the DSS and the SDG in 2007.
§ Sample size:
- Some concerns were expressed about the sample size for the NCN or the new regular modules. Eurostat stressed that the sample size will be fixed at a minimum of 135,000 effective individual interviews for the ICT, the AES, the EHIS-minimodule and the short annual NCN module (calculation and sample size allocation were presented by the consultant team during the last TF meeting in July 2008). For the modules on specific populations (e.g on migrants) or on specific topics (e.g. victimisation), sample sizes will be computed on a case by case basis, depending on the topic, with a balance cost/quality. For instance, the global sample size currently considered for the EDSIM module (module on disabilities, to be included in 2012 to fulfil DG EMPL’s demand) is 150, 000 (to be further discussed).
- The question of the sample sizes for small countries was raised (representative figures to be produced or not?)
§ Mode of data collection: Eurostat underlined again that countries will be totally free to choose the mode of data collection.
– Legal issues: the need for some countries that the project starts with a legal basis- at least for the NCN modules- was highlighted (DE, CZ, SE, DK, AT, UK). Eurostat reminded that the project as a whole is planned to start on the basis of a gentlemen’s agreement (sectoral regulations would apply to ICT and AES modules). Eurostat will try to solve this issue through bilateral discussions; a legal basis (EP and Council regulation) will be developed ASAP but it is unlikely to enter into force before 2012.
– Financial issues: a 100%-funding was requested by some countries (AT, CZ, DE…), especially given that in some cases no national funds will be available without legal basis (CZ, SE). Eurostat specified that the financial rules of the Commission do not allow a 100%-funding (Financial Regulation, art 113), and that for Eurostat the co-financing of an action has a 90% limit of eligible costs per action (with an average level of co-financing with a 70% limit kept as a general objective) as communicated to the countries during the Task Force on Financial Partnership meeting held on 26/09/2007. If a 100% funding is absolutely required, the Commission will then use tenders instead of grants, but Eurostat is afraid that it would have a negative impact on the quality and would prefer that such an important project remains in the field of the NSIs. Eurostat will keep working on this issue and might consider a 90%-funding of all modules included in the project during the first 4 years of its implementation.
– Timetable: some countries expressed doubts about the provisional timetable and the possibility of starting the project in 2010. Some delegates expressed their wish to postpone the project after 2011.
– Consequences of EHS for NSIs: many NSIs underlined that the implementation of EHS is likely to cause an increase of their burden, especially during the 2nd quarter of the year and especially for small countries (MT, CY).
– Eurostat is aware of this problem, but underlined, on one hand, that policy demands will come, whatever decision is taken for EHS- which is not a new survey but a coordinated system (the additional burden is only caused by the NCN modules)-, and that one main asset of the project is that it will avoid the emergence of uncoordinated urgent demands every year. On the other hand, the proposed structure was designed in order to minimise the additional burden on fieldwork forces. Moreover, the whole EHS project itself is very flexible and for instance carrying out the data collection of the short NCN during the 1st semester of the year in order not to overburden the 2nd quarter of the year while ensuring a timely delivery of results, could be considered.
– Minimodule EHIS: some countries (FR, LT, ES, PT) underlined that there is no need to collect indicators on health on an annual or 2-year basis. They are currently collected on a 5-year basis through the comprehensive EHIS and this is sufficient. Moreover, if the mini EHIS was implemented, the problem of the reconciliation between the comprehensive EHIS and the minimodule would raise some quality issues. Eurostat was thus asked to reconsider the integration of the EHIS minimodule in EHS.
– Relations between EHS and SILC/LFS modules: it was clarified that the SILC, LFS and EHS (NCN) modules are of different nature (LFS modules needs link at micro-level with detailed labour information, SILC modules needs link at micro-level with detailed income information; all other modules are candidates for EHS). A strong coordination between all these modules is needed to avoid overlaps. For the SILC project, the review of the instrument (together with the review of the legal basis) will be the occasion to re-discuss the need for annual modules.
Conclusion
The results of the pilot data collection will be available by the end of the year and will be carefully looked at during the next TF meeting.
Then Eurostat, taking into account all comments received, will produce a revised version and launch a written consultation of the DSS at the beginning of December 2008 before the decision of the SPC in February 2009.
This revised version will particularly re-consider:
- the need for the EHIS-mini-module to be included;
- the planning of the 5-year modules;
- the timetable for implementation;