Political consensus is expected to be a key challenge for the new Pensions Commission, industry experts have warned, with the state pension triple lock set to be a particularly difficult issue to approach.

During the Work and Pensions Committee's (WPC) latest oral evidence hearing, Pensions Policy Institute (PPI) director, Chris Curry, said that the last commission was very successful at building consensus.

However, he warned that "one of the challenges that [the new] commission has that was perhaps not there in quite as much detail for the last commission is the political consensus challenge", suggesting that "at the moment, it is quite difficult to think how that could be approached".

And the current commission is working in a very different landscape, as International Longevity Centre deputy chief executive, Ben Franklin, pointed out that there are signs of an uptick in pensioner poverty, particularly for pensioners who are renters.

In addition to this, he warned that the government’s fiscal situation is "much more precarious now than it was 20 years ago".

However, Curry suggested that the consensus reached by the first commission is something the new commission can learn from, with the weight of the evidence a key factor.

“A lot of research and analysis was done," he stated. "In fact, the first couple of reports from the last commission were very long, detailed and analytical, but they helped people understand not just the questions but also the options and choices that had to be made, and it highlighted those trade-offs.

"With the commissioners we have for the next commission, there is a very good chance that that could be replicated; I know they have the same level of interest in that space."

However, Curry clarified that "it is important not to try to get consensus at every step of the way but instead to engage people as to why they are taking the direction they are and then, when they get to the recommendations, work at that stage to help people understand why they are the right recommendations".

This was echoed by Institute for Fiscal Studies deputy director, Jonathan Cribb, who argued that "policy consistency has been something we have essentially all benefited from, even though we need improvements. It is good that it is doing an interim report to set the scene and then build on".

"The political situation seems somewhat more fluid now than in the mid-2000s. What it should think about is whether there are potential tweaks to its proposals," he stated.

"Could it make an overall set of proposals that whichever government is in after the next election would be able to take forward, and that are consistent with what they might want to implement?

"It is one thing to design a set of policies that one particular political party would want to implement, but another to think of a broad framework that could be tweaked depending on the exact government in power.”

Meanwhile, the state pension triple lock is expected to be a particularly difficult challenge for the government to approach, as Curry admitted that “it is hard to see how the triple lock will be ended without it being part of a broader review or set of changes”.

"The challenge with the triple lock is a political one as well," he explained. "Any party that suggests it is going to remove the triple lock will pretty quickly come under fire from every other party, who will then say it will not. It is a really difficult one without that consensus and overarching understanding of, “This is why we are doing it.”

However, Curry clarified that the real challenge is not the triple lock, but the state pension itself.

“It is not entirely clear what the purpose and policy objective of the state pension is," he argued.

"Without knowing what that is, it is very hard to be able to determine, when you are in that space, whether you have that objective or how you then maintain that objective.

"One of the potential big challenges for the Pensions Commission is to find that consensus as to what we think the state pension is for. We have a broad idea that it is a foundation upon which to build, but that is quite a loose definition.

"Other countries, for example, have explicit targets of what proportion of average earnings it might be replacing. We do not have anything like that, which gives us some flexibility, but it also makes it very difficult.

"We just need a little more work to understand what we want the pension to do, and then it will hopefully become clearer as to how we can manage that in the longer term."

Given these tensions, MP for Horsham, John Milne, queried whether the government can control state spending at the same time as addressing pensioner poverty, and if "there is a way to cut the Gordian knot?”

There was optimism amongst panellists, however, as Cribb argued that “we are at a point with the state pension where relatively targeted policies for particular groups, specifically those with high rents, can make a material difference compared to what it would be fair to call the blunt instrument of the state pension used as a sledgehammer against pensioner poverty”.

"There are more targeted things you can do if you are concerned about pensioner poverty," he stated.

Curry partially agreed, although he warned that "there are always choices and that is the challenge".

"There is always a trade-off between complexity and simplicity, and one of the big challenges in all this is people’s perception of fairness," he noted.

"When it comes to the state pension, people have a very specific idea that this is a benefit they have contributed to via national insurance throughout their working life. Anything that moves away from it being a universal benefit to a contributory benefit, and from the fact that people should get at least a minimum amount, is going to be difficult.

"If you set an idea for what the state pension should be providing, and have that objective, then maybe some choices become more clear-cut and transparent and may be easier to put into place."

This was echoed by Centre for Ageing Better deputy director for work, retirement and transition, Andrea Barry, who warned that "you cannot look at the triple lock in isolation, you cannot look at pensions in isolation, you have to look at it as an entire system of changes".

"You should be looking at why certain people, compared to other groups, are reliant on that system, reliant on benefits and the state pension payment," he stressed.

"You should make sure that if you are going to continue to look at the adequacy of the state pension, some mitigations are provided for them."

Despite the political sensitivities surrounding the state pension, industry experts nearly unanimously agreed that this should remain a key part of the commission’s scope and remit, emphasising the need for a holistic approach to pension policy.

And the right solutions may at times spread beyond pension policy, as the panel were also keen to flag issues around healthy life expectancy vs life expectancy, and the need to get older people working, as Standard Life Centre for Ageing Better head of analysis and policy, Patrick Thomson, suggested that “the more challenging part, which is also very important, is how you help people return to work”.

“We know that over-50s in employment support programmes have among the worst outcomes. It is a more challenging picture, but it is certainly worth doing. I just want to stress, this is about helping people to work for longer, whether they have health conditions or caring responsibilities, or whatever the challenges might be.

Franklin said he "aggressively agreed", suggesting that while getting to grips with pension spending over the medium to long term is really important, this has to coincide with action around supporting longer working lives "to ensure we do not just swap one benefit for another".

---