Discussion of the triple lock for state pensions (Sunak pledges to keep to pension triple lock despite signs of extra £10bn cost, 16 August) has to take account of the fact that, according to the House of Commons library, “a comparison of state pension alone shows the UK providing a lower level of pension than most other advanced economies relative to average earnings”. The deficit is somewhat ameliorated for those with private pension income.
This results in about 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty. Whatever its political intentions, the economic effect of the triple lock was the gradual and modest increase in the relative wellbeing of the poorest pensioners. However, as the Guardian has noted, that went into reverse in 2022. Since then, pensioners solely on state pensions have benefited relative to average incomes, but remain among the poorest section of the population whose real inflation rate (driven by food and energy costs) is far higher than the increases received.
Similarly, many of those with private pensions (typically invested in the bond market) will have suffered loss of income due to the falling value of these investments. It is therefore inappropriate to single out pensioners as a group who have benefited while the general population has suffered.
Whatever its political intentions, the triple lock acts principally as a modest safety net for the poorest pensioners.
Dr John Hurley
Gretton, Northamptonshire
It is surely right to increase basic state pensions, which are low compared with many other countries, and the triple lock is one way of doing so. Yet at the same time, this government is resisting cost of living increases for public sector and related workers.
However, it is unnecessary for people like me, who have adequate occupational pensions, to have increases based on all three criteria. It would be possible to claw back the increases, particularly for those paying higher-rate tax, by using the tax system – surely, this would only be fair.
Martin Wright
Otley, Leeds
