The triple lock was never a pensions strategy

I’ve never been a huge fan of the State Pension triple lock. 

Not because I don’t believe in a decent State Pension. Actually, quite the opposite. 

My problem is that the triple lock has always been a bit of a political stunt. A neat slogan that allowed politicians to demonstrate their commitment to pensioners while avoiding the much harder question of what should the State Pension actually be worth? 

At the Labour Party Conference, the Prime Minister finally opened that particular Pandora’s box. And I think he’s right to do so. 

The triple lock will remain until 2030. After that, the State Pension will increase by at least inflation or 2.5%, with additional increases where necessary to maintain its value relative to earnings. 

That feels pretty sensible in principle: protect pensioners against inflation and make sure they share in rising prosperity, while ending a ratchet that can push the State Pension permanently higher relative to earnings simply because of the interaction of three numbers. The real test, as ever, will be how those commitments are defined and applied in practice. 

In some ways, it takes us back to Turner. 

The original Pensions Commission recommended restoring the earnings link because the State Pension had been allowed to wither relative to working-age incomes. Crucially, it treated that change as one part of a wider settlement rather than as a standalone policy. 

A decent State Pension, greater private saving through automatic enrolment and increases in State Pension age were all part of the same settlement. How much people receive, when they receive it and how much they need to save themselves are inherently linked. 

The triple lock came later and, somewhere along the way, the mechanism became the objective. Rather than debating the right level of State Pension, politicians competed to “protect the triple lock”. 

That’s not a pensions strategy. 

That is why the timing of the Prime Minister’s announcement matters. 

We already have a Pensions Commission looking at adequacy and the future of the pensions system. We also have a State Pension age review looking at longevity and sustainability. 

Yet before either has concluded, the Government has made a pretty fundamental decision about the future State Pension settlement. 

I understand the politics. The Prime Minister wants to tackle social care, explain how it will be funded and get a controversial decision out early. And I’m genuinely pleased somebody has finally been prepared to open Pandora’s box. 

But it isn’t exactly joined-up policymaking. 

 You can’t sensibly decide how much State Pension people should receive without thinking about when they receive it. And neither can be separated from private saving, adequacy and what society can sustainably afford as the population ages. 

That’s the debate we should now have. 

Not whether we should “protect the triple lock”. But what we actually want our pensions system to achieve and what combination of State Pension, pension age and private saving will get us there. 

Turner understood that 20 years ago and with a new Pensions Commission underway, now would be a good time to remember it. 

The triple lock was never a pensions strategy. What replaces it must be part of one.