Triple lock alternatives: will the government reform the state pension?
The government has promised not to touch the state pension triple lock this Parliament, but rising costs mean reform could be inevitable eventually
One government policy that tends to set the cat among the pigeons is the triple lock.
The mechanism, which uprates the UK state pension each year by whichever is highest out of inflation, wage growth or 2.5%, came into effect in April 2011.
But the policy’s viability has been called into question in recent years as the UK population ages and the cost of funding the state pension grows.
Try 6 free issues of MoneyWeek today
Get unparalleled financial insight, analysis and expert opinion you can profit from.
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The state pension cost the government £138 billion in 2024/25, equivalent to around 5% of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects this could rise by £85 billion to 7.8% of GDP by 2070.
Despite the escalating costs, the major political parties are hesitant to ditch the triple lock.
Only the Green Party has proposed getting rid of it, suggesting the state pension rises by the higher of inflation or earnings instead.
Investment platform AJ Bell surveyed 2,000 UK adults and found roughly 40% believe the mechanism should be made permanent while just 6% want it scrapped.
Age was a big factor in attitudes towards the policy. Over two thirds (68%) of baby boomers said they would be keen on keeping the policy in place versus just 14% of generation Z (aged 18-29) and 22% of millennials (aged 30-45).
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said: “A significant section of the public support the triple lock, particularly older voters, and any party indicating it will not pledge allegiance to the policy risks being annihilated at the general election.”
What are the alternatives to the triple lock, and is reform on the cards?
Possible state pension reforms
The political danger of tinkering with the triple lock hasn’t stopped various think tanks and working groups from weighing in with their suggestions.
Earlier this month (May 2026), the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change proposed scrapping the current state pension and replacing it with a ‘Lifespan Fund’. Under the proposed change, the triple lock would be ditched and individuals’ payments would be uprated annually to ensure they kept up with median earnings.
It calculated the Lifespan Fund would cost just 5.31% as a share of GDP by 2073/74 versus 7.65% under the current state pension system.
Adding its voice to the debate, this month the Intergenerational Foundation proposed ditching the triple lock and capping yearly state pension increases at inflation until 2031, then uprating it by the average of inflation and earnings from 2031 onwards.
The think tank estimates this approach would save the government around £19 billion a year by the end of the 2035/36 financial year and £38 billion by the end of the 2045/46 tax year.
Other recently proposed changes include an inflation-linked state pension, as suggested by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in September 2025.
But as Len Shackleton, editorial and research fellow at the IEA acknowledged, “whether any party has the bottle to go down that route, given the size of the pensioner vote, looks doubtful”.
In July 2025, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggested that a better approach to the triple lock would be to uprate the state pension in line with a “smoothed earnings link”, similar to the system used in Australia.
This would see the government set a target level for the state pension based on a share of median full-time earnings.
In years when the state pension is at the target level, the state pension would be uprated in line with average earnings growth. For years when inflation rose above average earnings growth, the state pension would instead increase in line with inflation.
Other suggested reforms in recent years include those from the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI), an independent research organisation, which – in 2024 – published a briefing paper highlighting three alternatives to the state pension triple lock.
These included a ‘double lock’ – similar to the IFS’s recommendation – and two earnings-linked options; one increasing the state pension in line with earnings growth and another increasing it by an average of CPI and earnings growth.
The first earnings-linked option risks pensioners being exposed when the inflation outstrips wage increases. The second offers more compromise but risks pushback from younger generations, who may worry the state pension would be eroded before they had a chance to receive it.
How likely is a change to the triple lock?
The government has promised not to change the triple lock this Parliament, but beyond that, its future looks less certain.
In July 2025, chancellor Rachel Reeves launched the next phase of the government’s pensions review. This included reviving the Pensions Commission to tackle a savings crisis that is set to leave pensioners in 2050 worse off than today’s retirees.
In August, the government launched a review of the state pension age, which is exploring whether it should automatically increase in line with rising life expectancy, potentially pushing the state pension age up to 70. So far, nothing is on the table in regards to the triple lock.
Should the state pension be means-tested?
There have been calls to means-test the state pension, which would lower the financial burden on the government while ensuring those on the lowest incomes have enough to live on.
Some experts have suggested means-testing the state pension could give the government an extra lever, beyond increasing the state pension age, to manage costs.
However, Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “Talk of means-testing the state pension causes huge concern and could get in the way of people making decisions such as buying National Insurance credits that could improve how much they receive."
She warned such rumours can deter people from pension saving, fearful they might lose the benefit if they have built up savings elsewhere.
The IFS is also against managing costs in this way. In its pensions review published in the summer of 2025, it urged the government to commit to never means-testing the state pension.
The think tank pointed to research that shows the state pension accounts for 71% of retirement income for low-income pensioners (bottom fifth). Even among the richest fifth, it accounts for 23%.
There is some support for means-testing. Research from J.P. Morgan Personal Investing shows 53% of gen Z and 57% of millennials are in favour of this measure.
Surprisingly, 32% of baby boomers and 31% of the silent generation were also in favour.
Further, support for means-testing was highest among wealthier individuals (who would be hit hardest by it); 63% of those earning £90,000 or more expressed support, compared to 47% amongst all adults.
Could the number of contribution years to get the state pension rise?
Another way to reduce the cost of the state pension is to tighten the eligibility criteria. The IEA has proposed increasing the required number of years of National Insurance (NI) contributions.
The state pension is not automatic for those reaching 66. They need at least 10 qualifying years on their National Insurance record to be able to claim the state pension.
At the moment you need a full 35 years of contributions to receive the full new state pension; if you have fewer years, your pension is reduced pro rata.
Len Shackleton, editorial and research fellow at the IEA said it suggested the UK’s current 35-year NI requirement, particularly with a rising state pension age, “is not a big ask – particularly as there are various credits if you are not working through caring responsibilities, illness and so on.
“So we could conceivably phase in a requirement for, say, 40 years of contributions to receive a full pension and 15 years to get any pension,” he added.
