C.S. 84
KISTED
(a)
(e)
(1)
i
1 1
3 e
The aim described in (b) above should be achieved by regular (preferably annual) re- views of pensions/annual allowances in payment on a specific date, e. g. 1st July
XCR(75)236
Annual reviews are recommended in order to protect pensioners from the effects of inflation, Only in the most exceptional circumstances,
e. 3. an extremely rapid rate of inflation, should a review be conducted more frequently than every twelve months.
Payment of any increases in pensions considered to be justifiable as a result of a review on the lines referred to in (d) above should be effective from a specified date of implementation with no retrospectivity, e.g. 1st October
This recommendation is based on the current practice in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. To dispense with retrospective payments will make the administration of pension payments by the Treasury much more convenient.
The payment of any increase in pensions is subject to the provision of funds in the normal way, but pensions should be a first call on the general revenue
The payment of any pension increase must of course take into account the financial situation and availability of funds at the time. However, since pensioners are generally elderly and less able to fend for themselves than those still in employment (who would generally have higher incomes), it is considered that priority in the allocation of funds by the Government in its role as an employer should be given to pensions increases rather than to salary increases or to other calls on public funds which in time of economic recession could be deferred.
Financial implications
G
If the six criteria recommended by the Working Party had been applied during the period 1967-74, the resulting increases in pensions would not have cost much more than the series of ex-gratia increases which were actually granted during those years. But in 1975
RESTRICTED