They also asked the court to clarify whether, if the decision to amend the index goes ahead, it would trigger a cessation clause in gilts issued from 2005 — a suggestion the then-chancellor rejected on the grounds that the RPI would continue to be published, albeit as a “legacy index”.
In his judgment, the judge rejected the trustees’ claims on each of the three grounds. He said the court had found that the UKSA did have the power to align the RPI and the CPIH, and that parliament placed no restrictions on its ability to do so when it invested the body with the power to make such amendments.
Regarding the second ground, he said that parliament had not required that the UKSA weigh up the “winners and losers” as a result of any change it chose to make, it being “concerned with promoting and safeguarding the quality of official statistics”.
“Parliament has not authorised the UKSA to evaluate and balance such competing interests, or the policy issues to which they give rise. In relation to the RPI, the UKSA is essentially concerned with its statistical quality and its fitness to be used as a measure of consumer price inflation. Decisions on whether to use an index such as the RPI in a commercial or social context are for others,” he explained.
The judge also found that the chancellor had received “ample briefing” on the effects of the proposed change, and that these had been accounted for in reaching the decision not to award compensation.
Of the third ground, he noted that the trustees had accepted that their complaint that the UKSA had failed to properly consult on the change would have to fail if they did not succeed in their argument from the second ground, which they did not.
“They cannot complain about a failure by the UKSA to consult on the RPI decision, given that in substance their complaint relates to matters falling outside the UKSA’s statutory functions,” the judge wrote in his summary.
He also held that the claimants had failed to show any legal basis for the assertion that the chancellor was legally obliged to consult on the question of compensation.
“In any event, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that consultation on this aspect should have taken place, the complaint would still fail. Consultees did make extensive representations on the subject and they were fully taken into account by the chancellor,” the judge explained.
“The claimants have not suggested that the consultation carried out prevented any additional point on compensation being made by consultees to the chancellor.”
Finally, he provided the requested clarification on the cessation clause in gilts issued since 2005, the court having decided — with the chancellor — that the fact that the RPI will continue to be published means the clause would not be triggered.
