My comments on the triple lock have certainly been grossly misrepresented, partly perhaps because people aren’t used to someone talking about pensions policy from a long-term perspective and assume it is all short-term thinking.

My clear position is that I have always supported and continue to support keeping the commitment to the triple lock on the basic and new state pension until 2020. This is all that the government has committed itself to now as well. The issue arose because I had been called by a number of journalists who said they understood that Theresa May’s chief of staff had said he believed pensioners had been protected too well, relative to other groups and asking me if I thought the triple lock was under threat. My response was that I hope it is not removed before 2020, because it was a clear commitment and we do need to protect pensioners, however that beyond 2020 there is a question mark.

Currently, the law only requires the state pension after 2020 to be increased in line with earnings. As Pensions Minister, I suggested to colleagues that perhaps the government should consider committing to a double lock from 2020 onwards. That would be better than the current legally required uprating, and it would guarantee the highest increase for pensions of either prices or earnings. That means pensions would not fall behind the rise in the cost of living or the rise in average earnings, and would be protected relative the rest of the economy and society. This would give pensioners better protection than other groups, but it would not ‘bake in’ the 2.5 per cent figure that is not related to any economic or societal yardstick.

The 2.5 per cent was a bit of a political gimmick, but it is currently included in the long-term forecasts for the costs of state pensions and inflates the cost significantly because it apparently has to be assumed in place until there is an announced policy change.

If we give pensioners a double lock, the best of rises in earnings or prices, then there is still nothing to stop a government, year by year, paying more than this, whether it is 2.5 per cent or a different amount, but because that is a discretionary annual figure it would not need to be baked into the long-term finances. By allowing this discretion, while locking in double protection, the cost of state pensions in the long-term would be reported as lower than otherwise and this could also help alleviate some of the pressure for continued rises in state pension age.

I feel that raising the state pension age has been a really difficult policy and has significant unfairnesses that have been underplayed or under-recognised by policymakers. It is clear that many women were simply not told that their state pension age would be rising from age 60 after the 1995 changes and then they had a second rise imposed as well. The upshot is that some women are facing a sudden six year increase in their pension age and this has caused real hardship.

Even with the increase in state pension age for men, from age 65 to 66, I am sure many men still do not know they won’t get their state pension when the reach age 65. This rise starts in two years’ time, yet the government has not had a widespread communication campaign to publicise this. I tried to get this done, but politicians consider this is ‘bad news’ so have been reluctant to pay money for a campaign, yet I believe it is absolutely vital that we have a national campaign to warn everyone that by late 2020 nobody aged 65 will be able to get their state pension. Not only is this a problem because people may be left with little or no income, but it is also unfair in many ways.

The state pension age has been increasing because of rises in average life expectancy, however there are huge variations in life expectancy across the country. Those who live in certain regions, people with heavy manual labour occupations, dangerous jobs or on low pay usually have lower life expectancy than the average, so it seems unfair to keep raising their state pension age just because the ‘average person’ is living longer. By reducing the long-term forecast cost of state pension expenditure, there would be room to slow any future rises in state pension age and, because I am thinking of the long-term and social justice, it seemed to me that suggesting the double lock from 2020 could achieve a broader aim.

The triple lock itself is really a political construct. The 2.5 per cent makes no sense. If the government believes the state pension should be brought up to a higher level, then it can consider each year how much extra to increase it beyond prices or earnings, but without committing to an arbitrary number.

Too often, when people came to me with problems about their pensions, the official reply was that the government had the triple lock so it was unquestionably looking after pensioners properly. But of course this triple lock only applies to parts of the state pension, not all of it. Pension credit is only linked to earnings (although the government has in fact increased it by more than earnings in most years recently). State second pension, earnings related state pension, war veterans and widows benefits, carers’ benefits are all only linked to prices, so they were frozen last year and had no rises at all.

My position is that we must protect pensioner incomes, that the triple lock has fulfilled a useful purpose in boosting the level of the state pension and that we must also consider the long-term position beyond just this one parliament. A double lock would seem to offer pensioners good protection, does not preclude higher rises is the government of the day wants to do that in any year, but it would also help take some pressure off the need to increase the state pension age as much as might otherwise be the case by assuming the triple lock stays in place in perpetuity.

Former Pensions Minister Ros Altmann

Share Story: