Advisory Panel on Consumer Prices (Stakeholder and Technical) minutes: 5 September 2025

Members in attendance

Stakeholder Panel

• 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)

Technical Panel

• Jens Mehrhoff (German Bundesbank)
• Rupert de Vincent Humphreys (Bank of England)

Secretariat

• Rifah Abdullah
• David Beckett
• Richard Harris

Presenters

• Tanya Flower
• Michael Hardie
• Connaire Pearce

ONS observers

• James Benford
• Stephen Burgess
• Grant Fitzner
• Chris Jenkins
• Luke Michaelides
• Chris Payne

Other observers

• Tara Murphy

1. Introduction

1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the Joint Panel meeting.
2. James Benford (JB) introduced himself to the Panel and explained that a key objective for ONS was the effective prioritisation of their work, in order to maximise the quality of their statistical outputs. JB also explained that he was looking forward to working with the Stakeholder Panel and Technical Panel.

2. Future of the Consumer Prices Landscape and communication of the 2030 RPI change

1. The Panel discussed the tabled paper and reflected on how the role of CPIH should be communicated, particularly in regard to how it should be described, for example as the lead measure or most comprehensive measure.
2. A range of views were expressed and use of the term ‘broadest measure’ was also discussed. The Panel discussed the merits of describing CPIH and CPI as being based on macroeconomic principles. No conclusions were arrived at but Mike Hardie agreed to reflect on the feedback before coming back to each Panel with some proposals.
3. The Panel discussed whether supplementary statistics such as seasonally-adjusted consumer price statistics should be included in the Consumer Prices Landscape. There was agreement that a more detailed picture could be attached to the Landscape but that it would be ideal to keep the actual Landscape document as simple as possible in the interests of clarity.
4. A conversation held earlier that day at the Stakeholder Panel was referenced which related to ONS’s detailed tables publication. The conversation had led to an action point for ONS to circulate a link to the detailed tables to allow Stakeholder Panel members the opportunity to suggest amendments or additions to them. Any changes implemented as a result of this discussion may lead to additional supplementary statistics being listed in the attachment to the Landscape, and it was agreed that ONS may wish to reflect on whether a wider user consultation on this topic would be worthwhile.
5. The Panel agreed that the current wording of the proposed RPI reform should be updated to provide additional certainty to stakeholders that the changes will go ahead as planned. The Panel noted that this was an ideal time to provide additional certainty as the 2030 changes were about to fall within the OBR’s 5-year forecast horizon.
6. The Panel were almost unanimous in agreeing that the HCIs were still viewed as a key part of the Consumer Prices Landscape, and were keen that resource was allocated in the future to aid with HCIs’ pathway to accreditation.

Action:

Mike Hardie to reflect on the feedback on communicating the role of CPIH before taking proposals back to the Stakeholder Panel and the Technical Panel.

Action:

ONS to reflect on whether a wider user consultation on the statistics published in the detailed tables should be undertaken.

3. Revisions and correction of errors policy

1. Connaire Pearce (CP) spoke to the tabled paper, summarising the suggested changes to the revisions and correction of errors policy for consumer price inflation statistics.
2. The Panel welcomed the clarity that defining revisions and correction of errors brought but asked for further clarity on what types of exceptional circumstance mentioned in the paper there could be that would lead to CPI or CPIH being revised.
3. The Panel noted that the new policy says that RPI will never be revised but that CPIH may be revised. This could lead to an inconsistency from 2030, when RPI will use the data sources and methods of CPIH.
4. The Panel queried what legal obligations ONS were under when producing RPI and why this was cited in the consumer price inflation statistics policy as a reason for not adopting the central policy in full.
5. The Panel queried whether it was the right decision to remove the previous threshold of a 0.1 percentage point discrepancy in the annual growth rate for publishing errors.
6. A Panel member offered to pass on further comments by correspondence which was welcomed by CP, who also invited other Panel members to do the same. CP would reflect on the comments before producing a final draft of the policy.

4. Groceries scanner data parallel run

1. Tanya Flower (TF) presented an updated impact analysis of grocery scanner data. TF also described some of the lessons learned from this work and what was planned in terms of new microdata outputs.
2. TF explained that there was work being done on updating the Prices Technical Manual and that if any Panel member wished to provide detailed feedback on the new chapters they should get in touch with her or David Beckett.

5. Any other business / summary

1. The Chair thanked Panel members for their contributions to the meeting and the ONS for their presentations and papers.
2. The date of the next Joint Panel meeting was still to be determined but it was agreed that the Secretariat would e-mail Panel members to determine their availability before agreeing a date.

Action:

Secretariat to contact Joint Panel members to organise the date of the next Joint Panel.