Your location:

The pensions triple-lock farce will have to come to an end soon

    Baroness Altmann, the former Pensions Minister, made a very welcome intervention yesterday, calling for an end to the so-called “triple-lock” on pensions by 2020. Since 2010, the triple-lock has ensured that the State pension increases by the highest of average earnings, inflation or 2.5%.

    There is, of course, a very strong case for making a link to inflation to shore up pensioners’ purchasing power, or even linking the State pension to earnings to preserve relative living standards. However, at a time of public spending restraint the triple-lock policy appears pretty indefensible, considering the enormous burden on the public finances.

    As can be shown in Figure 1, the UK Treasury claims that every eligible pensioner will receive an extra £570 in 2016-17 due to the state pension increasing by the triple-lock rather than by average earnings. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, there are around 12.96 million state pension claimants, meaning that the policy has costed an extra £7.4 billion for the year 2016-17. That’s equivalent to 13 large state of the art hospitals. 

    Figure 1: Benefit per pensioner of triple lock vs earnings linked state pension

    Table 1: Cost to public purse of triple lock vs earnings linked state pension (2016-17)

    Benefit per pensioner


    Number of eligible pensioners




    Source: HM Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions

    If the triple-lock policy continues, the burden on the public finances will only increase. The extra cost of the triple-lock, compared with an earnings uprating, will be 7% higher by 2040 and 14% higher by 2065, according to the Pensions Policy Institute. These figures roughly align with analysis by the Government Actuary’s Department, which projects costs to be 9% higher by 2040 and 23% by 2070.

    Even though the fiscal burden of the triple-lock is clear, some argue that pensioners’ living standards need to catch up with the rest of the population. This claim doesn’t stand up to scrutinty, however. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that Pensioners now have higher incomes on average than the rest of the population, once housing costs and family composition are taken into account.  

    The triple-lock policy is economically unsustainable and it is difficult to justify going forward. The policy needs to be revised but doing so will be fraught with political difficulties. Pensioners vote in disproportionate numbers and politicians still remember the outrage when the State pension was only increased by 75p in the year 2000. After 2020, the State pension will need to be linked to either earnings or inflation. A watered down version may come in the form of reducing the underpin in the triple lock from 2.5% to 1.5%, which may go some way to reducing the burden on the public finances.

    What’s clear is that this issue will need to be tackled over the next few years… 

    Daniel joined the Centre for Policy Studies as Head of Economic Research in November 2015. He was promoted to Deputy Director in March 2017. Prior to joining the CPS, he worked in research roles for a number of parliamentarians. Daniel left the CPS in March 2018.

    Centre for Policy Studies will not publish your email address or share it with anyone.

    Please note, for security reasons we read all comments before publishing.


    Tony Cypriot - About 1395 days ago

    I think they key thing into addressing this is not necessarily to amend or scrap the triple lock system but have a genuine relook as to when the State Pension is provided as the set retirement age ought to of adapted over the years since its creation over a century ago undet the Asquith Liberal government.

    A sensible approach that would've been more socially, politically accepted back then was to have the retirement age relooked and raised by 3-6 months come every decade of which would've of made the subject not such a taboo headline given the way generations would simply adjust and expect the flexibility vs being used to a lifetime rigid set up that vehemently would come under close tyranny for any government to meddle with.

    That is what we need now from both political sides of the spectrum to acknowledge and vow to a sensible review of the retirement age on a decade basis whilst also add a little more flexibility to it by offering retirement early for those prepared to accept a reduction on what they would get if they continue to work until their set retirement date.

    The rigidity of the system's age of entitlement is the issue not the way we calculate the value set for protecting pensions.

    Comment on This

    Centre for Policy Studies will not publish your email address or share it with anyone.

    Please note, for security reasons we read all comments before publishing.