People under mid-40s will get no state pension until age 68.
But just increasing state pension age prolongs disadvantage for regions and occupations with known lower life expectancy.
Cridland is right to highlight importance of encouraging more later-life work and of helping those caring for elderly loved ones.
I hope this review will help pave the way to end the increasingly unfair triple lock.
This review is another reminder of the unfairness of the triple lock policy: I agree with Cridland that the triple lock should be abandoned by 2020. The report highlights the tradeoff between more generous pension increases and raising state pension age. Indeed, the longer the triple lock stays, the greater the pressure to keep raising state pension age which will frther disadvantage those groups with lower life expectancy.
The triple lock has become a political construct which purports to offer great protection while increasingly disadvantaging the oldest and poorest pensioners. The lock protects around £160 a week for the newest pensioners and only around £120 a week for older ones. It does not protect the Pension Credit which the poorest pensioners must rely on at all.
Having the triple lock in place also puts more upward pressure on the state pension age which itself disadvantages poorer areas of the country and those in heavy manual occupations. So the unfairness and extra cost of the triple lock make it ripe for reform.
Ensuring state pension income for the oldest and poorest pensioners is vitally important and all pensioners should have protection against cost of living increases and rises in earnings. I would like to see a double lock, which drops the arbitrary 2.5% figure. Cridland suggests linking to earnings but I would like to see some protection against inflation too if that is rising faster.
If we do drop the triple lock then there will be less pressure to keep raising the state pension age.
Disappointing that Review decides against early access: People with shorter than average life expectancy generally still pay around a quarter of their salary in National Insurance. They may have worked for 50 years or more but may die before being eligible for any state pension - or may receive very little. This seems inequitable and their lower life expectancy is not recognised by our National Insurance rules. Normal insurance would usually charrge lower premiums to such people but that does not happen. Therefore allowing early access could compensate for this even if for a reduced pension.
I would like to see more allowance for people to get their state pension earlier if, for example, they are in poor health or started work exceptionally young, perhaps in tough industrial jobs, and genuinely cannot keep going till nearly 70. Even if it is on a reduced basis, I think allowing people to get some state pension in a band of ages rather than just one ever-increasing age, would be more socially equitable. Cridland recommends extra help just one year before State Pension age but I think a band of, say, between 65 and 69 would be fairer.
Raising state pension age too fast has caused terrible problems for many women - lessons need to be learned: The Government also needs to learn from the women's state pension age fiasco that it is essential to ensure people are told what their state pension age will be, in good time to prepare for any changes. Many older women are facing serious hardship as a result of Government failure to communicate with them. I would like to see the Government recognise that some have been seriously impacted but sadly there is no sign of this
Cridland is right to focus on helping people work longer, especially part time: I'm pleased to see the Review suggesting reforms such as later life training, career reviews and protection for carers, which I championed when I was Business Champion for Older Workers. Retirement can be a process rather than an event, with people cutting down gradually rather than suddenly stopping.
Brexit makes later working even more important: As we leave the EU, with falling immigration, it makes sense to use our home-grown talent and lifelong experience with older workers still earning and contributing to the economy and their own future income. But we should not force people to stay on and should recognise the wide variations in life expectancy across the UK regions and occupations.
|
