𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The triple lock is expected to deliver a 3.9% increase in April 2027, based on earnings growth in the three months to July. The September inflation figure came in lower at 3.5%, so the earnings element holds sway. That should lift the full new state pension by £489.36 a year to £13,036.96. Sadly, it’s not quite that simple. It never is, with the state pension. There are two state pensions, and the other one pays considerably less.

People who reached state pension age before April 6, 2016, receive the old basic state pension. Its full rate is currently £9,614.80 a year. A 3.9% increase will add just £374.98, taking it to £9,989.78. That’s £114.38 less than the increase enjoyed by someone receiving the full new state pension. The gap between the two full rates will widen from £2,932.80 to £3,047.18 a year. It’s a longstanding source of frustration and I highlight it every year, because readers ask me to. Many on the basic state pension feel they have been left behind.

Women have particular reason to be concerned. Under the old system, they were far more likely to have gaps in their National Insurance (NI) records because of caring responsibilities, lower earnings or time spent working part-time. That could leave them with a smaller basic pension. The rules have changed over time, but the legacy remains.

There is an important qualification. Not everybody on the old system receives only the basic pension. Around 6.9million also receive additional state pension built up under schemes including SERPS and the State Second Pension, or S2P. This can mean they receive more overall than the basic rate alone. Men typically do better than women.

That extra pension was generally built up through earnings and NI contributions during their working lives. It was not simply a bonus handed out by the state, although some people were contracted out of the additional state pension and paid more into a workplace or private pension instead.

For those who receive additional state pension, there is another twist. Unlike the basic and new state pensions, which benefit from the triple lock, the additional element only rises in line with inflation each year. With September inflation at 3.5%, it looks set to increase by that amount in April, rather than 3.9%.

The difference is not enormous in any one year, but these gaps can accumulate over time. And for older pensioners who already feel they have been short-changed, it adds another reason to feel aggrieved.

It also offers a taste of what could happen if Andy Burnham wins the next election and presses ahead with his plan to weaken the triple lock after 2030. He has proposed replacing the automatic earnings link with an alternative system, but has yet to explain exactly how it would work.

As I argued yesterday, the earnings element is the most important part of the triple lock. Burnham has offered some vague commitment that allows the state pension to keep up with pay, but that leaves pensioners dependent on future politicians deciding how generous they can afford to be. We know how politicians operate. It won’t end well.

The state pension is fiendishly complicated, with different rules, entitlements and wrinkles depending on when you retired and what you paid in. Nobody is entirely satisfied with it, and the headline rate is still not enough for many people to live comfortably.

With Labour reluctant to make savings elsewhere, the state pension remains a tempting target. Another triple lock rise may be welcome, but for millions of older pensioners, it may leave a bitter aftertaste.