Annex
THE GOVERNMENT
ACTUARY'S
REPORT UNDER
SECTION 36 OF
THE CHILD
SUPPORT, PENSIONS
AND SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT
2000
This report provides an instructive example
of both the GAD's independence and the dangers of ministerial
interference. Section 36—a new clause moved by Baroness
Castle and Baroness Turner on the third reading of the Bill on
19 July 2000—required the Government Actuary or his Deputy
to report on the effect of increasing the basic pension in line
with earnings in each year up to 2005-06. The report was to be
laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
The clause was accepted by the Government but,
when it was discussed in the House of Commons on 24 July, the
Minister, Mr Rooker, said:
"There will be a report at the earliest
available opportunity, which is likely to be in January. That
is when the normal report on uprating appears ... It is not practical
to produce a report for when we return from the recess."
The implication of this statement was that,
conveniently for the Government, the report would appear too late
to influence its decision on the April 2001 uprating, which would
normally be announced in November. But the Minister's statement
also appeared to imply that the timing of the report would be
decided by him rather than by the Government Actuary.
Following this statement, a number of organisations
and individuals wrote to the Minister, the Government Actuary
or both, urging that the report should be submitted to the Secretary
of State without undue delay and pointing out that the GAD and
not the DSS was responsible for its timing. On 25 September 2000,
the Southwark Pensioners' Action Group wrote to the Deputy Government
Actuary, Mr Andrew Young, asking about the likely date of completion
of the report. He replied on 28 September: "The report .
. . is now at a very advanced state and I am hoping to be able
to submit it to the Secretary of State next week"—leaving
ample time for it to be laid before Parliament when business resumed
after the recess, on 23 October.
This did not happen. Instead, in a written answer
on 26 October, Mr Rooker stated that the Government Actuary was
"currently finalising his report" and that it would
be published when completed. On 3 November, replying to a letter
from Lady Castle, the Government Actuary confirmed that he had
submitted the report in the week ended 6 October and that the
Secretary of State had asked him to "complete the report
by adding a further section to take account of the Government's
proposals for uprating in April 2001 . . . in time for him to
lay the report when he sets out his proposals to Parliament next
week". The report was published on 9 November. In his covering
letter, the Government Actuary described it as "a revised
report".
It seems clear that the Minister initially tried
to dissuade the Government Actuary from producing a separate report
under section 36, which would have shown that restoration of the
earnings link was affordable at least for the next five years;
but the Government Actuary, giving his responsibility to Parliament
priority over the Minister's wishes, proceeded to submit his report
in the first week of October. Instead of laying it before Parliament,
the Secretary of State sent it back to be "completed".
The revised report published on 9 November, however, included
the figures from the original report, as well as the revised figures
taking the April 2001 uprating into account. The Government Actuary
had successfully defended his professional independence but it
is regrettable that he should have had to do so.
|
