Concerns over the impact of the rising cost of the state pension have been raised, after research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) revealed that maintaining the triple lock could increase spending by anywhere between a further £5bn and £45bn per year by 2050.

The IFS' research showed that the triple lock has already raised state pension spending by around £11bn a year compared with what spending would be if the pension had risen in line with either prices or earnings since 2010.

According to the analysis, the new state pension, which most people approaching the state pension age will receive in full, is now worth as much as a share of mean full-time earnings (25 per cent) as the basic state pension was when price indexation was introduced and the link between the basic state pension and average earnings was broken in 1980.

If the triple lock had not been in place since 2011, but instead the state pension had risen in line with inflation, a full new state pension would now be worth around £180 per week, 11 per cent less than its current value of £204 per week.

However, the IFS noted that the triple lock can generate considerable uncertainty for individuals regarding the state pension they might receive in the future, with a reasonable range (occurring 80 per cent of the time) for the value of the state pension in 2050 sitting between 26 per cent and 32 per cent of mean full-time earnings.

In today’s terms, this would mean a range of £10,900 to £13,400 per year – a difference of £2,500 per year.

The uncertainty around the future level of the state pension means that there is also significant uncertainty in the future cost of providing the state pension.

With costs estimated to reach as high as £45m, the IFS warned that the triple lock could increase the cost of providing the state pension to such a great extent that it could also lead to other reforms to control spending, such as a much higher state pension age, which would be especially disadvantageous to poorer and less healthy people approaching pension age.

Commenting on the findings, IFS research economist and one of the report authors, Heidi Karjalainen, also suggested that these uncertain and rising costs could create more pressure for politicians to make a change, potentially by increasing state pension age.

“The triple lock makes it especially hard to know how much you might receive from a state pension and how much the state pension will cost the state in the future," she stated.

“An additional real risk is that retaining the triple lock for too long increases state pension spending so significantly that it leads to insurmountable pressure for a much higher state pension age.

"This would particularly affect people with poorer health who struggle to remain in employment until they reach state pension age.”

Adding to this, PensionBee director of public affairs, Becky O’Connor, said: “The state pension forms a large proportion of most people’s retirement income – some people have nothing else at all in old age.

"It’s vital that older people are kept out of poverty and that their incomes rise by enough to continue to meet basic living costs.

“While there is a case to review the triple lock and make sure it is working as it should, its purpose – to ensure older people are at least able to eat and heat their homes, must be honoured.”

The triple lock has been in the spotlight in recent months, with the upcoming update on average earnings growth, to be published on 12 September, expected to determine next April’s increase in the state pension, as it is typically used as the measure of earnings for the pensions triple lock, and is likely to be above both 2.5 per cent and CPI inflation in September.

The government's latest review of the state pension age confirmed that it would not bring forward the date the state pension (SPA) age will rise to 67, although a further review is expected within two years of the next parliament to reconsider the rise to age 68.

Share Story: