Select Committee on Treasury Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 7

Memorandum from the Southwark Pensioners' Action Group

SUMMARY

  Over the past century, the Government Actuary's Department has acquired a reputation for professionalism, independence and objectivity. It is essential that its independent status should be preserved.

  The annual uprating reports would be more useful if they were published at the time of the uprating statement in November, rather than when the uprating orders are laid in January.

  It would be even more useful if the Government Actuary were asked to report on the state of the National Insurance Fund in advance of the uprating statement.

  The DSS should be asked to report on the feasibility of reducing the interval between announcement and implementation of the uprating, thus allowing the Government Actuary's report to be published nearer to the uprating date.

  The annual uprating reports should include medium-term projections.

THE GAD'S REPUTATION

  The main functions of the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) have always been in the field of social security. Its history goes back to the beginnings of the British social security system in the early years of the last century. Over that period it has acquired a reputation for professionalism, independence and objectivity. Its work and the published reports based on it are highly respected both by other Government Departments and by the wide range of outside bodies with an interest in social security and the various types of non-state pension schemes.

  The GAD's reports are virtually the only source of information on the future prospects of the National Insurance Fund. These reports include, on a regular basis, a quinquennial report on the Fund's long-term prospects and reports on the shorter-term financial implications of the annual benefit upratings and of other proposed changes in the structure of national insurance benefits. The GAD may also be asked to produce special reports on particular aspects of the benefit system, a notable recent example being the report required by section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 on the cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings.

  In general, and increasingly so in recent years, Government statistics are viewed with a degree of suspicion, in the belief that "statistics can prove anything" and that they are subject to a process of selection before publication. No such suspicion attaches to the GAD's reports which are generally accepted as presenting an unbiased view. This is particularly important where, as has happened increasingly over the past 25 years, the GAD is asked to advise on the terms of contracting out of the state pension scheme—advice which forms the basis of the financial relationship between the state and private pension providers.

  In recent years, the Government Actuary's reports have played an important role in revealing the massive surpluses in the National Insurance Fund. The Fund theoretically operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, with income and expenditure roughly in balance year by year. It carries a working balance which, the Government Actuary recommends, should be at least one-sixth of annual benefit expenditure. Apart from this working balance, contributors are entitled to assume that the contributions they pay will be used to meet the current cost of benefits. The Treasury, however, appears to regard the Fund as something of an irrelevance. NI contributions are seen as a tax like any other, whose relationship to benefit expenditure is little more than a historical accident. Thus, the Fund has built up a large surplus which bears no relation to its current needs, and this process is expected to continue for some years ahead. The Government Actuary's reports have provided regular information on this subject, which is highly relevant to the public debate on state pensions policy.

  A major factor in the GAD's unique reputation and the confidence reposed in it is the fact that it is a separate Government Department headed by highly respected professionals. The Government Actuary sets his own standards and is not subject to the supervision of Ministers or senior civil servants. It is essential that this independent status should be preserved. Any suspicion that the GAD was taking orders from the Treasury or the Department of Social Security would quickly and permanently undermine it. The point is well illustrated by recent events relating to the Government Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, of which an account is given in the annex to this submission.

TIMING OF ANNUAL UPRATING REPORTS

  Under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the annual draft orders setting out the National Insurance contribution and benefit rates for the ensuing year must be accompanied by a report by the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposals on the National Insurance Fund. The usual course of events is that the contribution and benefit rates for the following April are announced in November, following publication of the September price index figures; but the draft orders, together with the Government Actuary's report, are not laid before Parliament until January. By then, there is no possibility of the report having any effect on the uprating: the orders are nearly always approved without a division (the Liberal Democrats' decision to vote against last year's uprating is the only exception of which we are aware).

  The uprating reports would be more useful if they were published at the time of the uprating statement in November, rather than when the uprating orders are laid in January. This is what, in effect, occurred in November 2000, when the Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 was published on 9 November in the circumstances explained in the annex below. The Administration Act could be amended to enable the same procedure to be followed in future years.

  It would be even more useful if information on the outlook for the National Insurance Fund for the following year were available to the public and to Parliament in advance of the uprating statement. The Government Actuary could be asked to submit an annual report on the state of the Fund, taking into account existing legislation and any changes which were known to be under consideration, and including illustrations of ways in which any unneeded surplus might be used or a deficit avoided. This would enable public debate to take place before decisions were announced.

  Consideration should also be given to the timing of the uprating statement itself. The interval between the statement and the uprating is five months. While this might have been necessary in the days when pension order books were produced by hand, it cannot be necessary in modern conditions (in the case of the Minimum Income Guarantee, which is now normally uprated in line with average earnings, it leads to the absurd result that the April uprating is based on the average annual rate of increase in earnings recorded in the three months up to the previous July). The DSS should be asked for a report on the feasibility of reducing the interval between announcement and implementation of the uprating, thus allowing the Government Actuary's report to be published nearer to the uprating date. Comparison with the uprating timetable in other countries could be enlightening.

MEDIUM-TERM PROJECTIONS

  The value of the uprating reports could also be increased if they included medium-term projections, instead of showing the effect of the uprating for the following year only. The Government's decision on each annual uprating must take account of its likely financial consequences for at least the next five years, based on the GAD's advice, and there is no reason why that advice should not be published. It is true that long-term estimates are given in the GAD's quinquennial reviews, but these are based on ten-year intervals. For example, the quinquennial report published in July 1999 gives figures for 2000-01, 2010-11, 2020-21, 2030-31 and so on, but not for individual years between 2000-01 and 2010-11.

24 January 2001


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 27 March 2001