Work till you drop

Pushing the retirement age up in the coming years would mean men in certain areas of the country could die before claiming their state pension.

A Commons Work and Pensions Committee debating the triple lock on pensions – which sees the state pension rise by average earnings, the consumer price index or 2.5 per cent each year, whichever is highest – pointed to statistics showing that life expectancy in the UK varies widely.

MPs discussed a new analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) which argued that if the triple lock is to be sustainable in the future, the state pension age would have to rise to 70.5 by 2060.

The problem is that in many areas in the UK men have a life expectancy below 70.5. In England, in 26 areas including Blackpool, Manchester, Teesside, Leicester, East London and the Wirral, men on average live less than 70.5 years. In Blackpool, the city with the lowest overall male life expectancy in England, the average is 67.5 years.

In parts of Scotland, the situation is even more dire, with male life expectancy below 70.5 in 62 neighbourhoods in Glasgow alone. The lowest male life expectancy was 62.5 years in the Parkhead West and Barrowfield area of Glasgow.

Stark contrast

These figures stand in stark contrast to average male life expectancy in the UK’s most affluent areas – in Westminster, which includes Mayfair and Covent Garden, average male life expectancy is 92.9, a full 25 years longer than a man living in Blackpool.

Several MPs took the IFS analysis as evidence that the triple lock should end and be replaced with a different system pegged only to average earnings with some limited protection from inflation. Doing so, some MPs claimed, would mean that the state pension would not have to rise by as much over the coming decades.

But shadow work and pensions secretary Debbie Abrahams hit out against the proposal, noting that Labour aims to maintain the triple lock beyond 2020, when the present government said it would review the pensions policy.

MPs in favour of ending the triple lock said that it wasn’t fair to younger generations, who’ve borne the brunt of austerity, in a wider debate on ‘intergenerational fairness’.

But Abrahams argued that supporting young people working now doesn’t necessitate an end to the triple lock.

“It is important to protect the triple lock and universal pensioner benefits while making different choices to support other generations,” she said. “The Labour government made great strides—about 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty—but one in seven have remained in poverty since 2010.

“That level is still much too high, and it should worry us,” Abrahams added. “That is not acceptable in one of the richest countries in the world, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the trend does not rise again.”

Unite national officer for retired members Mike McCartney agreed.

“The triple lock was introduced to keep pensioners out of poverty,” he explained. “And in that respect, it’s been enormously successful. Most people don’t realise that the state pension is not some fantastic sum of money – it just barely keeps many pensioners afloat.

“Taking away the triple lock will mean you’ll have to increase benefits elsewhere,” McCartney added.

He dismissed the idea that the state pension age would have to rise to nearly 71 by 2060 an “establishment view”.

“The labour movement in particular has fought long and hard to reduce the pension age and now the establishment sees a way of increasing the pension age once again,” McCartney argued. “To raise the pension age so drastically across the board even if people are living longer doesn’t take into account how people of the same age have vastly different health outcomes.

“Just because people are living longer doesn’t mean they’re living a decent life,” he pointed out.

Not a zero-sum game

Unite young member and shop steward Tom Duarte believes that protecting his generation’s future while simultaneously supporting those who are retired or approaching retirement is possible – it’s not a zero-sum game.

And he too stands against the idea that future workers should have to work longer and longer before they reach state pension age.

“Just because we might live longer in the future doesn’t mean that we should be forced to work longer if we choose not to,” he said. “We will have paid into the system for decades and so should be given enough years to actually use the state pension.”

Unite retired member Wendy Mersh, who was previously a Unite rep working for Barclays, agrees.

“It is a disgrace that some MPs are proposing raising the state pension age by so many years in the future – people at that age have worked long and hard all their lives,” she said. “They don’t understand that different people are mentally and physically fit at different ages. Everyone should be given the opportunity to enjoy life for many years after they’ve stopped working.”

Wendy believes that young people like Tom should also benefit from the triple lock in future.

“Life is very different for young people today – they’re facing much tougher times so ensuring we keep the triple lock to protect their futures is critical,” she said.

“It irritates me when they call pensioners entitlements ‘benefits’,” Wendy added. “‘Deferred earnings’ is a much more accurate term – we’ve paid into the system for decades so the government should look after us.”

And what of the idea that some MPs put forward – that the triple lock has done its job in alleviating pensioner poverty and so should end?

“I don’t know where they get this idea that there’s less poverty today,” Wendy argued. “Just look around you – you didn’t have the level of homelessness you see today. It wasn’t like before. Poverty is growing and the government just turns the other way.”