Commenting on the removal of triple-lock, Chris Noon, Partner, Hymans Robertson says: “We don't agree with the Conservative manifesto's assertion that the "The Triple Lock has worked". The Governments own figures show that the changes in State Pension introduced in April 2016 reduce the long-term costs of State Pension by £8bn a year. This saving includes the cost of the triple-lock. Moving from triple lock to double-lock saves another £4bn a year, equivalent to a £250 a year reduction in State Pension. This reduction will have the most significant impact on low and middle-earners who will rely most on the State Pension for their retirement incomes.”
Darren Philp, Director of Policy and Market Engagement, from The Peoples Pension, said: "This is just another example of constant moving of the goal posts. It illustrates just some of the difficulties savers face in determining their likely levels of pension income with any degree of certainty, and ultimately will mean people will have to save more themselves. We need the next Government to develop a long terms savings strategy, and importantly stick to it and not constantly tinker with the system."
Stephen Scholefield a pensions partner at international law firm Pinsent Masons said: “The pensions headline will be the proposal to keep the triple lock until 2020, but not beyond. But equally significant is the proposed strengthening of the regulatory regime governing private pensions. In line with previous statements, and with a nod to BHS, The Pensions Regulator is to be given new powers to intervene in and block corporate takeovers, with the prospect of a criminal offence being introduced for those who recklessly put at risk a pension scheme’s ability to pay its pensions. The job of running pension schemes isn’t getting any easier – but on this issue at least the Conservative Party is coming out on the side of those saving for their retirement. Given its stance on the triple lock, it’s perhaps not a surprise that it’s backing private pension provision. What this means for pensions tax relief remains to be seen.”
|
