The state pension will not be means-tested under Labour, and the triple lock is safe

The state pension will not be means-tested under Labour, Pensions Minister Torsten Bell has confirmed.

Oh dear, that means it probably will be in a few months' time.
Watch this space. ☹

I'm very glad this has been clarified. Than you for the detail: its much needed. I believe it, btw: announcements on other areas of benefits have been made already and this was very necessary for reassurance.

Thank you, Doodledog, for the information, but these reassurances mean nothing.

Thanks Wyllow. I hoped it would reassure people (I feel reassured), but I should have expected that some will always throw whatever good things the LP do back in their faces.

Means-testing pensions would be the ultimate betrayal, IMO.

You are never one to support any politician because they are from the "right" party Doodledog: this was a clear policy statement as part of the slew of efforts to examine benefits.

The fundamental problem which I have with any assurance such as this is that as a result of their actions so far I have no trust whatsoever in anything Labour says.

Doodledog

Thanks Wyllow. I hoped it would reassure people (I feel reassured), but I should have expected that some will always throw whatever good things the LP do back in their faces.

Means-testing pensions would be the ultimate betrayal, IMO.

Untrue accusation.

It's from the experience of years that politicians, not just Labour, say one thing and do another.
And, of course, Ministers can be replaced.

In the 2023-24, National Insurance Fund (NIF) had a credit balance of £86.4 billion which is a good £60 billion more than needs to be held to meet estimated costs year-on-year.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-fund-accounts/great-britain-national-insurance-fund-account-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2024

The Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) uprating report published in January 2025 said:

The report sets out how the Fund balance is projected to reduce to £76 billion at the end of the 2024 to 2025 financial year [that reduction was due to Hunt’s pre-election NIC cut which cost £10 billion], before increasing each year thereafter up to 2029 to 2030 as the new rates take effect.

Contribution income is now estimated to exceed benefit expenditure in every subsequent year of the projection period, resulting in an increasing fund balance.

It is not anticipated any additional financing will be required during this period under the principal assumptions.

www.gov.uk/government/news/up-rating-report-2025-report-on-the-national-insurance-fund

Longer term projections of the Fund (up to 2085) can be found in the most recent (2020) Quinquennial Review of the Fund which was published in March 2022.

That report said:

The QR, shows the current balance in the NIF is projected to grow until peaking at a little over £100 billion in 2032. The NIF is then projected to run down to exhaustion by 2044.

If these projections materialise, HM Treasury grants to the NIF will be needed from 2040. (The NIF must retain a credit balance of one-sixth of its estimated annual expenditure. If it cannot then Treasury has to top up the funds).

{However] Since then, there have been a number of changes to NICs as well as a period of unusually high inflation*. The next Quinquennial Review of the Fund (publication date to be determined) will provide an update to these longer term projections over the period starting April 2025.

* That period of high inflation which triggered high triple lock percentage rises in the SP have still left the NIF with a credit balance of over £86 billion.

Where we are at the moment is that NIC collected, even after the allocation to the NHS (£33 billion in 2023/24) still exceeded the amount of contributory benefits paid out by £16 billion. Since then employers NIC has been increased which will boost the fund even further depending on how much is allocated to the NHS each year.

I don't think there was ever any cause for alarm.

We have made a commitment to the Triple Lock for the entirety of this Parliament which means spending on people’s State Pensions is forecast to rise by over £31 billion. Our commitment means millions of pensioners are set to see their State Pension rise by up to £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament. Protecting the Triple Lock even in the current economic climate shows our steadfast commitment to pensioners.

What he fails to mention is that, for millions of pensioners, the rise will be far lower than £1,900 pa.

It's how them tell 'em.

You’re lucky. Ours has always been means tested. We get zilch though we are certainly not rich by any standards. Best never to work because then you get the full whack here.

What he fails to mention is that, for millions of pensioners, the rise will be far lower than £1,900 pa.
That's why he said ' up to £1900'. As we know, many people on the old pension get much more than anyone can get on the new.

nanna8 it can be better not to work here, too. Pension credit can mean that people get a lot of things paid for that those who have contributed more have to buy, and NI credits are given to the unemployed so their pensions are not affected, when people on low incomes miss out on pension contributions. Similarly, people staying at home with children are credited with contributions to pensions which can last for many years depending on the number of children they have and how they are spaced in age.

This is why I feel strongly that means-testing pensions so that those who have paid all their lives lose out to those who haven't would be so very wrong. The fact that it works that way in Australia is absolutely no reason why it should happen here.

Anyway, I thought this was good news that people would like to have passed on. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered.

It is good news and thank you for posting it - although based on the amount of money in the NIF, there was never any doubt in my mind that the triple lock would be retained for the foreseeable future.

Also, thank you repeating what has already been said before on other discussion about this (and which Paul Lewis repeated in a recent article in the i) - that many people on the old state pension receive a far higher pension than those on the new state pension - although the Additional State Pension element that can make that so isn’t always triple locked* but rises in line with the CPI. That was only 1.7% compared to 4.1% for average wage growth.

* it seems to depend how it is added to the State Pension whether it's based on own earnings or inherited.

Pension Credit is also going up by 4.1% so the poorest pensioners in receipt of that will keep up.

Well I think the triple lock should go.

M0nica

Well I think the triple lock should go.

I don’t know what I think about that. If pensions were anywhere near minimum wage I would probably agree, but they are far from generous, particularly after tax. I don’t think the triple lock can last forever; but if scrapping it meant that the relative value would fall further (from the amount that is supposedly the minimum that people need) then I think we need to keep it for longer.

Thank you Doodledog. I found this post most reassuring.

Allira

^The state pension will not be means-tested under Labour, Pensions Minister Torsten Bell has confirmed^.

Oh dear, that means it probably will be in a few months' time.
Watch this space. ☹

That statement could true of any government. Watch out for the categorical statement. They are rarely as categorical as they sound.

However, it has always been the case that it is incredibly unlikely that current pensions would be changed. If changes were brought in, current pensions are most likely to continue as "legacy" pensions and changes planned for a future date.

If they are thinking of changes in the future, similar to Canada an Australia, they would need to ensure people were paying enough into a personal pension to exempt the majority from need. So the comment "“Policy provided the answer in the form of automatic enrolment.", is relevant to future pensions.

Look out for an increase in attention in this area (workplace pensions) as it may give a clue to how future state pensions are managed.

Thank you Doodledog for such an extensive update. It's really useful.

Thank you for the report which I will save, and wait and see.

Peter Kyle Labour Minister is now on breakfast news, not discounting cuts in disability benefits, confirming there will be reforms.

If this is so, the guarantee of the triple lock on pensions will only inflame the age divide…

If it inflames the age divide then people aren’t thinking about how percentages work.

A State Pension comes after decades of work and paying NIC and is less than half the minimum wage for someone working full. time and only a third of the average wage. In real terms, the rise is small, just £9 a week based on full nSP, £7.25 pw after tax. It barely buys a loaf of bread, cheese, milk and a box of teabags. Without a workpace pension, people without 35 years of NIC end up having to claim residual benefits.

Triple lock can be temporarliy suspended, as it was for 2022/23 due to a large post-pandemic rise in average earning,s but in the event of a suspension there would still be some rise to SP to take account of general inflation, either based on CPI or 2.5%.

We are in period of huge fiscal uncertainty at the whim of a madman in the White House. If anything is certain, it is that his vindicative tariff wars will cause global inflation.

Mean-testing of SP would require a long term legislative change. The SP equalisation maladministration is a case in point. The legislation was introduced in 1995 to take effect in 2010 - fifteen years being the usual lead time considered necessary for people to make changes in pension planning. We know that millions of women were not told when their new State Pension age was or, when they eventually were, it was with very little notice.

I suspect we could be looking at changes to the SP that could come into effect in the mid 2040s which is why is is being thought about now, 15-20 years before it might be necessary.

If Labour get a second term, I think they could start planning then. Radical changes are often introduced so that they become the work of the next goverment to implement. SP equalisation was only legislated for in 1995 almost 20 years after 1976 EU directive that required goverments to do so.

The 1995 Pensions Act came at the at the tail end of very long period of Tory government. It became Labour’s problem to implement without the necessary systems in place to do so. It wasn’t until 2007, twelve years after the 1995 Pensions Act, that the DWP finally admitted that it still didn’t have the information systems in place to tell the women affected individually and wouldn’t have until 2009 at the earliest - just one year before the changes came into effect.

That is going off topic but if anything has been learned about changes to pensions; if anything at all has come out of the PHSO investigation into the equaisation mess, it is that much better long-term planning and proper notice is required for any major change.

For those who aren't familiar with Torsten Bell, he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary in HM Treasury and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions on 14 January 2025.

This is a good introduction www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1fEc2hPrI8 It was recorded fife months ago be he got the job in the Treasury.

Let's hope this is so. But, personally, I wouldnt believe them if they said "The sun is going to rise tomorrow as usual".

With what would you replace the triple lock MOnica? I’m assuming you don’t believe that the level of the SP should remain static whilst prices of goods, services, rent and utilities rise?

“This is why I feel strongly that means-testing pensions so that those who have paid all their lives lose out to those who haven't would be so very wrong.”

I feel the same Doodledog.
As for the triple lock, when pensions get up to a decent level, especially for those on the older state pension, then it can go.