Members in attendance

• Professor Jonathan Haskel (Chair)
• Jonathan Camfield (Lane Clark & Peacock)
• Richard Gibson (Barnett Waddingham)
• Simon Kirby (Bank of England)
• Ashwin Kumar (Manchester Metropolitan University & Institute of Public Policy and Research)
• Jill Leyland (Royal Statistical Society)
• Tim Pike (Pensions Policy Institute)
• Ian Rowson (Independent Policy Analyst)
• James Smith (Resolution Foundation)
• Geoff Tily (TUC)

ONS Secretariat

• Richard Harris

Presenters

• David Beckett
• Stephen Burgess
• Luke Michaelides

ONS observers

• Tanya Flower
• Michael Hardie
• Chris Jenkins
• Chris Payne

Other observers

• Tara Murphy

1. Introduction

1. Jonathan Haskel (the Chair) welcomed everyone to the Stakeholder Panel meeting.
2. The minutes from the last Stakeholder Panel meeting (11 July) were agreed by the Panel.
3. The Panel noted that action points 30 and 50 would be marked as complete because the Household Costs Indices (HCIs) and their revision policy, the ‘roadmap’ to 2030 and progress on scanner data parallel runs would be discussed today at the Stakeholder Panel and Joint Panel.
4. Chris Jenkins (CJ) gave an update on action point 47 on the Price Index of Private Rents (PIPR), explaining that Stakeholder Panel members had been interested in determining whether ONS could publish median and quartile rental values and extend the coverage of the data to cover broad rental market areas. CJ further explained that the publication of back-series was another area of interest.
5. The Panel were told that a link would be included in the next PIPR bulletin for stakeholders to fill out, and that Panel members should also feel free to share their views. CJ said ONS could circulate a link to the questionnaire to Panel members and that an update on the questionnaire responses could be given at the first meeting of 2026.
6. The Chair gave an update on action point 51, explaining that he was still working with ONS to determine whether the Panel’s existing terms of reference are sufficient in the light of the greater focus on business prices development in the Economic Statistics Plan. A further update on this would be given at the first meeting of 2026.
7. Stephen Burgess explained that action point 52 will be covered in the Basket Quality Review item today, and will therefore be considered as completed.
8. Chris Payne gave an update on action point 53, explaining that he had met with the ONS communications team and that they had agreed they’d put together a communications plan to cover the period of time between now and the launch of scanner data in March 2026. CP explained he’d share the draft communications plan with the Chair when it was ready.
9. Stephen Burgess gave an update on action point 54, noting that the conclusions of the review hadn’t been finalised but that they would be shared with the Panel when they were ready.
10. David Beckett gave an update on action point 55, explaining that slide presentations would be shared with Panel members in advance of each meeting by email and that presenter mode would be used during the meeting so Panel members could more easily read through the slides.

Action:

ONS to circulate a link to the questionnaire being included in the next PIPR bulletin and to provide an update on the questionnaire responses at the first Panel of 2026.

2. Basket Quality Review

1. Stephen Burgess (SB) explained that ONS are making good progress on recruiting extra price collection resource through funding from the Economic Statistics Plan, which will allow sample sizes to be increased for some items in a targeted way.
2. SB then provided an update on the deep dive recommendations, explaining that ONS planned to increase the frequency of collection of video games from the 2026 annual round onwards.
3. SB committed to providing updates at each Panel on progress against the recommendations of the deep dive that had been discussed in July’s Panel and future deep dives that will be carried out on an annual basis.
4. The Panel thanked SB for his update and requested that future updates contained detail on what impact each deep dive recommendation would have on the headline all-item index.
5. The Panel queried whether requests for information from users tended to come in for the same items each month, or whether the requests tended to be for different items each month depending on which items had the largest change in contribution. David Beckett explained that there was an element of both and would provide further details at the next Panel.

Action:

David Beckett to provide a summary of the requests that come into the CPI mailbox, including analysis on the extent to which queries around the same items were being received every month.

3. Consumer Prices Development Plan

1. Luke Michaelides (LM) explained that an updated Consumer Prices Development Plan would be published later this month. Changes to the plan from last year include a reference to the Economic Statistics Plan, a new continuous improvement section to cover smaller improvements, and the removal of low priority work which hasn’t had resource allocated to it.
2. The Panel welcomed the presentation and agreed that including a complexity assessment for each workstream was helpful.

4. Future focus of the Panel and Stakeholder Panel future discussion plan

1. David Beckett (DB) spoke to the paper circulated for this agenda item and opened the floor for comments.
2. The Panel agreed that a standing basket quality review item would be helpful. As part of this item it would be helpful for updates to be provided on progress towards the high and medium priorities in the development plan, deep dive items, the continuous improvement board, anything relevant arising from the work relating to the Devereux Review and the ONS Economic Statistics Plan, any significant changes in the Risk Register, and any significant developments relating to IT.
3. The Panel also agreed that a standing item on progress on the Household Costs Indices would be helpful.
4. The Panel stated that they wished to know if the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) carry out any reviews on anything relating to consumer price inflation. Chris Payne explained that OSR had just published their Compliance Review of CPI and CPIH and suggested that ONS could circulate a link of the review to Panel members.
5. Following interest being expressed in the methodological change to imputation in the House Price Index, Stephen Burgess explained that this would be covered in more detail in the Joint Panel, but that ONS could circulate a link a blog that covered the methodological change that was implemented in August.
6. A discussion was held on what is included in the detailed tables ONS publish on release day, particularly in relation to the contribution figures for goods and services inflation and for core inflation. It was also noted that any suggested changes to the bulletin from Panel members would be timely as the new style of bulletin is currently being consulted on.
7. The Panel agreed with the tabled agenda items for each quarter in the Future Discussion Plan.

Action:

ONS to circulate a link to the recently-published OSR Compliance Review of CPI and CPIH.

Action:

ONS to circulate a link to the blog on the imputation methodology change in HPI.

Action:

ONS to recirculate a link to the new bulletin and a link to the detailed tables so each can be discussed at the first Panel of 2026.

5. Household Costs Indices

1. Luke Michaelides (LM) talked the Panel through the tabled paper which detailed a pathway to the Household Costs Indices (HCIs) being granted Accredited Official Statistic status. LM explained that the HCIs hadn’t been included in the Economic Statistics Plan meaning careful planning would have to occur to ensure progress continued to be made.
2. LM explained that HCIs had seen their first annual weights update and that some tasks, such as the calculation of stamp duty, had been automated. LM also explained that the Department for Work and Pensions had used HCI data to analyse child poverty impacts and that the most recent HCI release had included a user survey to explore how stakeholders were using the HCIs in their work.
3. The Panel concluded that they were happy with the priorities set out in the pathway to accreditation, noting particularly the importance of resolving the issue relating to the Wealth and Assets survey having its Official Statistic status removed. The Panel also expressed an interest in there being a more in-depth discussion on the treatment of mortgage interest payments and other interest payments at an appropriate time.
4. LM noted that there wasn’t a formal revisions policy or correction of errors policy for HCIs which means that revision and correct decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. LM detailed the different options that could be adopted for each policy before explaining that the ONS recommendation was to continue with a case-by-case approach for revisions until HCIs receive accreditation. LM also explained that the ONS recommendation was for the correction of errors policy to align with the approach taken for CPI and CPIH.
5. The Panel discussed the options and agreed with the ONS recommendations, while noting that after accreditation it may be helpful for revisions to only take place going forwards rather than applying retrospectively.

6. Any other business and summary

1. The Panel noted that the Secretariat would organise Panel dates for 2026.