Dear All,
 
Following receipt of my letter in support of Sandra's official statement (along with a couple of other points I made), I received the following response. (below). I assume this is a stock reply and that others received it as well, though I find the statement in the penultimate paragraph of interest: some submissions have no substance?
 
John F. Henry



ASRC Review

Thank you for your submission to the ASRC review. Your input to the consultation process is very much valued, and we will be giving close consideration to your suggestions. This feedback together with others we have received or may yet receive prior to 14th September will guide our decision making processes as the classification is finalised. Note the review process does not finish on the 14th September as there will be ongoing consideration of submissions and discussions with experts in respective fields.

Your concerns with regard to the proposed treatment of Economic History and History of Economic Thought have been formally noted by the review team and are being carefully considered. We will not finalise our recommendations in this regard until we have considered all input from interested parties.

Without wishing to pre-empt the consideration of submissions yet to be received, you should take some encouragement from the fact that we consider your argument to have substance.

Again, thank you for your valued input. Please direct any future correspondence to Dr. David Brett ([log in to unmask]) or to [log in to unmask]

Regards,

Glyn Prichard
Director
Innovation and Technology National Statistical Centre