There's a glaring omission from the pensions overhaul

The triple lock has made the state pension too expensive – but ditching the policy might be more popular if it meant people could retire before their seventies, says James Moore

- James Moore

Britons need to save more for retirement if they are to avoid penury in their twilight years. There is no getting away from that uncomfortable fact.

The triple lock - the mechanism that ensures the state pension rises in line with inflation, or wage increases, or by 2.5 per cent, whichever is the greatest - has done a fine job of reducing pensioner poverty, but, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated, it is now getting horribly expensive. The economy is simply growing too slowly, and the population ageing too quickly, to make it sustainable.

There’s an easy way to wriggle out of this bind: protect pensions by linking their value to inflation from here on out - or to earnings, if you like. You could call it the single lock. And then take steps to encourage pension saving.

There - problem solved, at least in broad terms. All it took was a bit of honesty and the willingness to speak uncomfortable truths. Who knew?

Except that’s not what the government will do. Because, despite all its macho talk about taking “tough decisions”, it’s running scared of the voters and the opposition, which is what happens when you make a mess of things and go into government without a plan.

Instead, we have the revival of - in the words of the Department for Work and Pensions - the “landmark Pensions Commission”, with supportive quotes from 11 (count ’em) organisations, including business groups, unions and charities. Talk about overkill. The statutory review of the state pension age (currently 66) is also being brought forward from 2029.