The state pension triple lock is coming under threat again. Barely a month passes without somebody calling for the mechanism to be axed. 

In January, it was the turn of government employment tsar Alan Milburn, once a Labour cabinet member under Tony Blair. He complained that successive governments have “backed the older generation with a triple lock, but there’s no such guarantee for young people”.

Milburn warned we face a “fiscal time bomb” unless the triple lock commitment is eased and money redirected to help the young find jobs.

But for pensioners, many of whom rely on the state pension as their main source of income, the triple lock isn’t just a policy, it’s a lifeline.

Since its introduction in April 2011, it has lifted millions out of poverty, protecting dignity and security in later life, by increasing the pension each year by inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest.

This April, pensioners will receive a 4.8 per cent pay boost, taking the full state new pension to almost £12,548. That’s still one of the lowest in Europe.

Official estimates show that by the end of the decade, the triple lock will push the annual pension bill to £171.7billion, up from £136.6billion in the 2024/25 tax year. That’s an increase of £35.1billion.

No wonder the Treasury and many MPs are so keen to scrap it. They’re just scared of doing so, because of the massive backlash from millions of pensioners.

At the Daily Express, we stand firmly behind the triple lock, but we also recognise it’s under growing pressure.

To explore the issue fully, we’ve asked three experts to weigh in. Their responses show why the triple lock is so important, and why pressure to scrap it isn’t going to relent.

Joanna Elson, chief executive of Independent Age, the national charity tackling poverty in later life, says: “We all deserve to live with dignity, choice and purpose as we age, and having an adequate income is essential to achieving this. Many arguments against the triple lock assume that all older people are financially secure, living in mortgage-free homes with large savings pots. But this is simply not the case.

“Almost two million older people are living in poverty and a further one million are hovering just above the poverty line. Losing the triple lock would push financial security even further out of their reach.

“The people that call our helpline cannot afford to lose any of their income. Rising utility bills and food costs are already putting them under immense financial strain. They cannot make any further cutbacks. Many are already sleeping in hats and coats, eating just once a day and limiting how often they wash. This is no way to spend your later life.

“The latest UK Government figures show that 910,000 older households who qualify for Pension Credit are not receiving it. Even with this financial support, 20% of those receiving Pension Credit are still in poverty. Until our welfare system can guarantee older people receive adequate support, there can be no question of reducing their income further by removing the triple lock.

“One in eight pensioners, and one in five single pensioners, rely on the State Pension and other entitlements for the entirety of their income. Ending the triple lock would be disastrous for this group.

“We want to see a future in which every older person can afford to live well. The revival of the Pensions Commission last year is promising.

“Hopefully, it will lead to reforms of the state pension, social security system and private pensions that ensure future pensioners have an acceptable standard of living. We’re campaigning for that, and if we achieve it, we can then talk about whether the triple lock is still needed.

“With the welfare system in its current state, scrapping the triple lock would plunge thousands, if not millions, more older people into poverty in the short term. It would also jeopardise the quality of life older people on low incomes have in the coming decades. For the foreseeable future, the Triple lock is necessary to provide the older people of today and tomorrow with a minimum income that has at least grown with inflation.” 

Laurence O’Brien, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies says: “The triple lock was introduced to protect pensioners when prices rise, and ensure the state pension keeps pace with general rises in living standards. These aims are commendable, because many retirees rely on the state pension for much of their income. 

“However, the triple lock goes beyond this. As the value of the state pension rises by the maximum of earnings, inflation and 2.5%, it can grow faster than both inflation and average earnings growth when viewed over several years. 

“Think of it like pressing the accelerator after every shock, but never touching the brake. Inflation pushes up the state pension one year, earnings push it up the next, and nothing ever brings it back into line. 

“This makes the long-run cost of the state pension system hard to control and forecast. We can’t afford this at a time when the public finances also face other pressures, such as the need to spend more on defence. 

“Ultimately, the triple lock is unsustainable because it leads to the state pension growing faster than the economy. This means ever higher taxes are needed to pay for it. 

“A better approach for indexing the state pension is to keep the best features of the triple lock while making the system sustainable and predictable. A good option is a ‘smoothed earnings link’, similar to that used in Australia. 

“This approach would give us the best of both worlds. It ensures that the state pension always rises at least as fast as inflation, protecting pensioners’ purchasing power.

“It also keeps the state pension anchored to living standards in the long run. But, crucially, it stops long-run costs spiralling in unpredictable ways. We can press the accelerator after shocks, but we then allow the state pension to come back gradually to an affordable level.

“The current government is committed to the triple lock for this Parliament, but it should not, and cannot, stay forever. Ideally this would be done with cross-party agreement, so pensions policy isn’t a political football. That would make it easier to announce, in this Parliament, a better alternative to take effect after the next election. This would protect current pensioners while putting the system on a stable footing for the next generation.”

Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, says: “Many pensioners rely on the state pension as the backbone of their retirement income, and our research revealed that for countless households, it is what keeps living standards afloat.

“However, we are equally cognisant of the fact that the triple lock pledge will become a material burden on the public purse, and is without a target for the level of the state pension, putting a strain on both the UK’s finances and its taxpayers.

“This pressure is becoming more pronounced as volatile earnings and inflation repeatedly trigger the most expensive components of the triple lock, creating a one-way ratchet effect.

“In its recent Pensions Review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted how the triple lock has no clear end target for what the state pension should ultimately be worth.

“The Adam Smith Institute went further, warning that the current system could become fiscally unsustainable by as early as 2036, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown how volatile inflation and earnings growth have repeatedly triggered the more costly elements of the triple lock, meaning the triple lock is expected to cost around three times more each year by 2030 than if it had been earnings-linked.

“These concerns illustrate that while the triple lock has delivered welcome protection for pensioners, it is not a long-term strategy in its current form.

“The state pension and its uprating mechanism should ensure people have certainty and security not just today, but also for future generations. That’s why we believe the Government should bring forward a formal consultation on how the state pension is uprated, and conduct a full appraisal of state pension income levels to ensure it is set at an appropriate level.

“Ensuring the state pension uprating mechanism is sustainable cannot continue to be kicked down the road. UK political parties should work together to agree what proportion of average full-time earnings the state pension should represent to provide cross party commitment to a long-term solution.

“Once that benchmark is set, the uprating mechanism should move to one based on average earnings which is acceptable to provide a minimum standard of living in retirement, with sensible safeguards for periods of unusually high inflation.

“For example, if inflation rises faster than earnings, increases could temporarily follow prices until real wage growth catches up, after which the benchmark would resume. This approach would preserve the essential function of the state pension while keeping costs predictable.

“A modernised, transparent system like this would ensure pensioners share in the country’s economic growth, protect their income against rising prices, and support long-term fairness between generations.”