TWO former senior government finance officials have called for ministers to explain the long-term risks of drawing £42 million from Social Security reserves before politicians approve next year’s Budget.
Alisdair Macleod and Caroline Anderson say States Members are being asked to back the transfer without sufficient information about its consequences for future pension funding.
Their submission to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel highlights actuarial modelling which brought the projected date at which the funds would run out forward by ten years under one migration scenario.
They want a supplementary Budget paper published before the debate on 8 December, setting out the evidence behind the decision and its effects on government finances and Social Security.
“Decisions affecting future pensions should rest on an agreed assessment of the Fund’s needs and liabilities, not on the immediate needs of General Revenue,” they wrote.
Mr Macleod is a chartered accountant who spent ten years working for the States, most recently as Finance Director at the Taxes Office.
Mrs Anderson is a chartered public finance accountant whose 30-year States career included serving as Finance Director at Social Security and Pensions and Investments Manager in the Treasury.
Submitting their concerns as members of the public, the pair challenged the explanation accompanying plans to transfer £42 million from the Social Security Reserve Fund in 2027 to offset a reduced States grant.
The grant helps fund contribution top-ups for lower earners. Reducing it does not change those top-ups, but shifts more of their cost from general taxation to accumulated reserves.
The government says the temporary reduction supports public services while avoiding tax increases, and that the fund can accommodate it “without immediate detriment”.
However, the pair cite the Fiscal Policy Panel’s warning last year that withdrawing reserves and cutting contributions before a comprehensive pension-funding assessment was published was “not prudent”.
They also highlight the government actuary’s November 2025 analysis of the proposed grant arrangements. Assuming net inward migration of 325 people annually, the projected exhaustion date moved from 2082 to 2072. With no net migration, it moved from 2066 to 2061.
Those projections are sensitive to migration and investment returns. Nevertheless, the authors argue that the Budget should explain whether the findings remain applicable or have been superseded.
They also question the timetable for further reviews. In January, the Chief Minister said a full funding-policy review would report in June 2026; the Budget now says reviews will be published in spring 2027, after the vote.
The pair want ministers to show the government’s financial position with and without the grant reduction, explain how restoring the full grant in 2030 will be funded, and establish a clear policy governing future reserve withdrawals.
