- The government estimates the unreformed triple lock could cost £50bn by 2050
- The state pension age is already scheduled to rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046
- Labour plans to replace the current triple lock formula in the next parliament
The warning comes from Bell, who argues that a future Conservative government would struggle to maintain the existing system without either changing the pension formula or increasing the age at which people qualify for the state pension.
“If you don’t want to have an adjustment to the triple lock, then you will need to do other things to make the state pension remotely sustainable,” he said, according to The Guardian.
He pointed to the Conservatives’ record in government, when planned increases to the state pension age were brought forward in 2011 and 2014. Some people were given as little as five years’ notice, he said.
Bell added: “All I’m saying is, Conservatives do raise the state pension age aggressively, and they have. And even though they know that the triple lock should change, they are opposing it – and the consequence of that is they would end up making people wait into their 70s.”
The state pension age is currently 66 and is due to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, followed by a planned increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046. The timetable remains subject to periodic review, while Bell's warning about an age above 70 is a political argument rather than an announced Conservative policy.
Why is the triple lock becoming a financial problem?
Introduced in 2011, the triple lock guarantees that the state pension rises each year by whichever is highest: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.
The mechanism has helped protect pensioners' incomes against rising living costs and wage growth. However, because the highest of the three measures is applied every year, increases can compound over time, pushing pension spending higher relative to earnings.
The government's own analysis of its planned reform estimates that adjusting the system would reduce annual state pension spending by around £50bn in 2049-50 compared with retaining the existing triple lock. In real terms, measured in 2025-26 prices, the projected saving is £30bn. These are estimates of the difference between the two systems, rather than a standalone forecast of the triple lock's total cost.
The debate has also exposed a political difficulty for Badenoch. She previously suggested that the triple lock could be means-tested, while former Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt described it as an “anchor drag” on public finances.
Bell said the Conservative leader was now taking a different position by opposing reform, despite having previously acknowledged the need to change the system.
He said: “I think this is a bigger problem for Kemi Badenoch than she thinks. She thinks that her brand is principled, know what you think, tell it straight. And on this, she has done the opposite.”
In 2013, former chancellor George Osborne defended increasing the state pension age, describing it as “one of the less controversial things we have done”. He also said the move had delivered “absolutely enormous savings”.
What changes is Labour proposing?
Labour has announced plans to adjust the triple lock from April 2030. Under the revised formula, the state pension would rise each year by at least the higher of inflation or 2.5 per cent. It would also rise in line with earnings where necessary to maintain its protected value relative to wages.
The government says the change would preserve the gains made by pensioners under the existing system while removing the mechanism that allows the state pension to keep rising faster than earnings over time. It has committed to retaining the current triple lock for the rest of this parliament.
The initial savings are intended to help fund Burnham's proposed National Care Service, which would provide free personal care for older people in England.
The change has nevertheless attracted criticism from the Conservatives, who argue that it weakens a guarantee that has helped pensioners maintain their purchasing power. The political challenge for Labour will be explaining how the revised arrangement protects pensioners while making long-term public spending more predictable.
Bell said the prime minister's 10-year plan would include a better deal for future pensioners, particularly private-sector workers who may not have the same retirement security as previous generations.
“The comfortable retirement that your parents had: we’re going to make sure that today’s private sector workers have got those,” he said.
For future retirees, the debate is about more than the annual pension increase. It raises a wider question about how the state funds retirement as the population ages, and whether younger workers can expect to receive the same level of support without having to work longer.
