Long-term triple lock commitment ‘out of scope' of pensions commission
The Work and Pensions Secretary has announced that she is reviving the commission, which last met in 2006, to tackle the issue of working age adults failing to put enough money into their retirement savings.
Experts have warned that people looking to retire in 2050 are on course to receive £800 per year less than current pensioners.
The commission is expected to provide recommendations for how to boost retirement income in 2027.
Ms Kendall also confirmed that the next statutory Government review into when and how to raise the state pension age will start work now.
'Unless we act, tomorrow's pensioners will be poorer than today's, because people who are saving aren't saving enough for their retirement,' she said during a speech launching the commission.
Lowering the age and earnings threshold at which people are brought into auto-enrolment and as well as looking at easy-access 'sidecar' savings accounts will be among the options the commission looks into.
Ms Kendall was asked if she thought it was impossible to maintain the triple lock guarantee given its cost and if she could guarantee it would be in Labour's next manifesto.
She said: 'The triple lock is out of scope of the commission. We've got a very clear commitment to that for the entirety of this Parliament.
'And what we're asking the commission to do is genuinely look medium to longer term, the middle of this century, and how the state pension and second pensions work together.'
The Office for Budget Responsibility recently said that the triple lock has already cost three times more than initially expected and suggested it was unaffordable in the long term.
Ms Kendall was also asked about the potential hit to small businesses from increased automatic enrolment costs.
'I want our small businesses to be successful, but it is also the case, you know, flag forward to the middle of the century, 2050, if we don't act, the amount of pensioner poverty we face will cost everybody if we don't act,' she said.
She said she was 'under no illusions about how difficult this will be'.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said 45% of working-age adults were putting nothing into their pensions.
The previous pensions commission recommended automatically enrolling people in workplace pensions, which has seen the number of eligible employees saving rise from 55% in 2012 to 88%.
DWP analysis suggested 15 million people were under-saving for retirement, with the self-employed, low-paid and some ethnic minorities particularly affected.
Around three million self-employed people are said to be saving nothing for their retirement, while only a quarter of people on low pay in the private sector and the same proportion from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds are saving.
Women face a significant gender pensions gap, with those approaching retirement in line to receive barely half the income that men can expect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK hedge fund Marshall Wace posted mixed returns for July, source says
LONDON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - British hedge fund Marshall Wace returned mixed results in two of its funds in July, a source close to the matter told Reuters on Monday. Co-founded by British financier Paul Marshall, the $76.9 billion firm returned 1.6% in July culminating in a 6.1% performance for 2025 so far in its Eureka Fund, the source said. The hedge fund's Market Neutral Tops fund returned -0.22% for July and is up 10.99% year to date the source added. Systematic stock trading hedge funds, like Marshall Wace, are up roughly 10% for 2025 so far, said Goldman Sachs on Monday.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform's 19-year-old council leader risks contempt of court over rape case comments
A Reform UK council leader risks being found in contempt of court after making a number of statements about the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl during a press conference in London. It comes after Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was charged with the rape of a girl in Nuneaton last week. Meanwhile, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, was charged with kidnap and strangulation. Warwickshire Police has not released the immigration status of the two suspects. George Finch - the 19-year-old Warwickshire county council leader - risks having broken the law with a comment he made about the case. Contempt of court refers to behaviour that interferes with the administration of justice or undermines the authority of the court. The Independent is not able to repeat a number of claims Mr Finch makes in the press conference without the newspaper risking contempt of court. At one point during the press conference, Mr Finch acknowledged the risks attached to talking about a live legal case, saying: 'I was told if I released this, I'd be in contempt of court.' The youngest council leader in the country claimed there has been a 'cover-up' of details about the case. It came as Nigel Farage suggested police forces should release information including immigration status about people who are charged with crimes. The Reform UK leader said that he 'absolutely' believes that information should be made available by police forces. In a statement, Warwickshire Police said that once someone is charged with an offence, they follow national guidance, which 'does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status'. Mr Finch told Monday's press conference that he was 'begging' for information about the two to be released in the wake of the charges. He said he had emailed the council's chief executive to say that he wished to speak to the police force and urge them to release information about the men's immigration status. Mr Finch also said he had later written a letter to home secretary Yvette Cooper and the chief constable of Warwickshire Police calling for the immediate release of the immigration status of the two. Mr Finch also claimed that Reform UK needs to 'change things' and is 'the last line of defence against the blob, the cover-ups'.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
