Long-term triple lock commitment ‘out of scope' of pensions commission
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Want to import toxic chemicals into Britain with scant scrutiny? Labour says: go right ahead
It's what the extreme right of the Tory party wanted from Brexit: to tear down crucial public protections, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous forms of capital. The Conservatives lost office before they were able to do their worst. But never mind, because Labour has now picked up the baton. A month ago, so quietly that most of us missed it, the government published a consultation on deregulating chemicals. While most consultations last for 12 weeks, this one runs for eight, half of which cover the holiday period – it closes on 18 August. The intention is set out at the beginning: to reduce 'costs to business'. This, as repeated statements by Keir Starmer make clear, means tearing up the rules. If, the consultation proposes, a chemical has been approved by a 'trusted foreign jurisdiction', it should be approved for use in the UK. No list is given of what these trusted jurisdictions are. It will be up to ministers to decide: they can add such countries through statutory instruments, which means without full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph the document provides what sounds like an assurance: these jurisdictions should have standards 'similar to and at least as high as those in Great Britain'. Three paragraphs later, the assurance is whisked away: the government would be able 'to use any evaluation available to it, which it considers reliable, from any foreign jurisdiction'. In this and other respects, the consultation document is opaque, contradictory, lacking clear safeguards and frankly chilling. Lobbyists will point out that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the US, or Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add that country as a trusted jurisdiction. If the government agrees, 'domestic evaluation' would be 'removed', meaning that no UK investigation of the product's health and environmental impacts will be required. In the US, to give one example, a wide range of dangerous chemical products are approved for uses that are banned here and in many other countries. The government has fired the gun on a race to the bottom. To make matters worse, once a country has been added to the list of trusted jurisdictions, all the biocidal products it authorises for use could, the consultation says, be 'automatically approved' for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, look like a realisation of the fantasy entertained by the ultra-rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2016: 'We could say, if it's good enough in India, it's good enough for here … We could take it a very long way.' There is in fact a means of reducing costs while maintaining high standards: simply mirror EU rules. Though far from perfect, they set the world's highest standards for chemical regulation. Mirroring them as they evolve would avoid the pointless institutional replication and total regulatory meltdown our chemicals system has suffered since we left the EU. But we can't have that, as it would mean backtracking on Brexit, which would be BETRAYAL. Adopting the weaker standards of other states at the behest of foreign corporations, by contrast, is the height of patriotism. The divergence from European standards is likely to mean breaking the terms of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement, as well as landing Northern Ireland in an even greater quandary, as it remains in both the EU single market and the UK internal market. In many cases, deregulation delivers bureaucratic chaos. The consultation also suggests the removal of all expiry dates for the approval of active chemical substances. The default position would be that, as long as a foreign jurisdiction has approved a product, allowing it to be used in the UK, it stays on the books indefinitely. Those arguing that new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved list would have a mountain to climb. Worse still, the consultation proposes removing any obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to maintain a publicly available database of the harmful properties of chemical substances on the UK market. No wonder they kept it quiet. Yes, these proposals might reduce costs for business. But the inevitable result is to transfer them to society. Already, we face a massive contamination crisis as a result of regulatory failure in this country, as compounds such as Pfas ('forever chemicals'), microplastics and biocides spread into our lives. If the decontamination of land and water is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits made by industry as a result of lax rules. In reality, we will carry these costs in our bodies and our ecosystems, indefinitely. The true price is incalculable. Many have paid with their lives, health, education or livelihoods for previous 'bonfires of red tape': through the Grenfell Tower disaster, filthy rivers, collapsing classrooms, consumer rip-offs and the 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be shifted off corporate and current government balance sheets, that is deemed a win for business and win for the Treasury. Earlier this month, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told financiers in her Mansion House speech that regulation 'acts as a boot on the neck of businesses'. In reality, business acts as a boot on the neck of democracy, a boot the government slathers with kisses. Before the general election last year, Reeves told an assembly of corporate CEOs: 'I hope when you read our manifesto, or see our priorities, that you see your fingerprints all over them.' The catastrophic planning reforms the government is now forcing through parliament were hatched, she told them, at a 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast' with corporate lobbyists. This was just one instance of a massive pre-election grovelling offensive, involving hundreds of meetings behind closed doors with corporations, which shaped Labour's plans and explains so much of what has gone wrong since. The point and purpose of the Labour party was to resist economic warfare by the rich against the rest. Starmer and Reeves have turned their party into the opposite of what it once was. Capital demands three things at once: that the government strip away the rules defending the public interest from ruthless profit-making; that the government regulate itself with insanely restrictive pledges, such as Reeves's fiscal rules; and that the public is regulated with ever more draconian laws, such as those restricting protest. It gets what it asks for. Everything must give way to capital, but capital must give way to nothing. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer accused of ignoring veterans for a year as Nuked Blood Scandal grows
Keir Starmer has been warned the Nuked Blood Scandal is growing out of control as veterans say he has ignored requests to meet them for a year The Prime Minister has been accused of ignoring the growing Nuked Blood Scandal since coming to office, with more than 50 veterans dying without justice on his watch. More than 2,000 survivors want the truth about a government programme of blood and urine testing of troops while they were being ordered to take part in nuclear weapons trials during the Cold War. The medical data that was gathered is now missing from their personnel files, denying them war pensions, compensation, and the truth about whether radiation left their families with a poisonous genetic legacy of cancers, blood disorders, miscarriages and birth defects. Keir Starmer was invited to meet campaigners and discuss their calls for a public inquiry within days of winning the general election last year, but his correspondence team did not even acknowledge the request. Since then his government has refused to tell Parliament about evidence it has now found of orders for the long-denied blood tests, serving government lawyers have been identified as having misled courts and judges, and his own officials have admitted scientists may have been conducting the experiments without medical supervision. Alan Owen, founder of nuclear veteran campaign group LABRATS, said: "This is the longest and worst scandal in British history. Long-denied allegations of using our own troops in radiation experiments are being proven with a growing pile of evidence, an expensive lawsuit, and a police complaint. But it seems we're not even on his to-do list." He added: "Either the PM is ignoring a problem that really needs his attention before it gets any worse, or someone is keeping this off his desk on purpose. Either way, we hear about another veteran dying every single week. These men have an average age of 87, a host of chronic health conditions, and they deserve better than this." The PM was tackled on the scandal by backbench Labour MP Emma Lewell in his first appearance at the Despatch Box after the election in July last year, and urged to hold an inquiry. Instead he promised her a meeting with Veterans Minister Al Carns. He has twice met with campaigners, but while he has ordered officials to review 1m pages of archive documents, he has refused all requests to say what he has found. The minister has ordered the release of a further 10,000 classified documents, thought to include at least 200,000 pages, but there is no date for their publication. Veteran Brian Unthank, 87, who has had 96 skin cancers, two bouts of bladder cancer and is now dealing with an "unusual" prostate cancer, said: "All I want is for Starmer to stand up, admit they got it wrong, apologise and find a way to sort it. But every promise we've ever had has been broken." Starmer was in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet in 2019 when he signed off on a manifesto pledge to pay survivors £50,000 compensation, but all mention of nuclear veterans was removed from Labour's latest version. Meanwhile nearly 4.8m people have seen a viral video about Labour's broken promises, with footage of deputy leader Angela Rayner, Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard all demanding, while in Opposition, that the Tories order payouts. The government has expanded the criteria for the nuclear test medal after the Mirror highlighted the story of Operation Bagpipes hero Pete Peters, but so far he is the only veteran to have benefited. The minister has been asked to expand it for hundreds more crews who were ordered to take part in sampling missions through the nuclear tests of other nations, but this week he refused to say when they would receive it. Colin Duncan, who was a RAF sergeant in 543 Squadron when planes were sent through the clouds of French hyrdogen bombs in 1974, is fighting for the medal to be granted to comrades who suffer the same horrific pattern of illnesses. "We thought the minister was considering new criteria, but I'm not surprised to hear he's doing nothing of the sort," said Colin, 86, of Chipping Sodbury. "There must be a couple of thousand veterans the MoD is ignoring." If more veterans qualify for the medal, they may also need to be included in long-term health studies which the government relies on to refuse war pensions, which could alter their findings. No10 was contacted for comment.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
First sanctions targeting people-smuggling gangs take effect
They target 25 individuals and entities including a small boat supplier in Asia and gang leaders based in the Balkans and North Africa. They also hit 'middlemen' putting cash through the Hawala legal money transfer system in the Middle East, which is used in payments linked to Channel crossings. Albanian Bledar Lala, leader of the Belgian operations of an organised smuggling group, and a company in China that advertised small boats for people smuggling on an online marketplace are among those sanctioned. A former police translator, Alen Basil, who went on to lead a smuggling network in Serbia, aided by corrupt policemen, is also on the list. Today I launched the world's first sanctions regime against people smugglers and organised immigration crime, which are key drivers of irregular migration to the UK. It is our moral duty to smash this evil trade. These callous criminals will have nowhere to hide. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 22, 2025 Foreign Secretary David Lammy said it was a 'landmark moment in the Government's work to tackle organised immigration crime (and) reduce irregular migration to the UK'. 'From Europe to Asia we are taking the fight to the people-smugglers who enable irregular migration, targeting them wherever they are in the world and making them pay for their actions. 'My message to the gangs who callously risk vulnerable lives for profit is this: we know who you are, and we will work with our partners around the world to hold you to account.' The measures aim to target organised crime gangs wherever they are in the world and disrupt their flow of cash, including freezing bank accounts, property and other assets, to hinder their activities. It will be illegal for UK businesses and banks to deal with anyone named on the list. The move follows legislation being introduced under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to ramp up enforcement powers for police forces and partners to investigate and prosecute people smugglers.
