View more on these topics

Malcolm McLean: Broken pledges on new state pension


There has been much criticism from all sides about the complicated arrangements for bringing in the new state pension from 6 April 2016.

Hardly anyone I have spoken to seems to fully understand why up to two-thirds of those with a full National Insurance record will still get less than the full new pension simply because at some time in the past they had contracted out of the state second pension.

The Department for Work and Pensions has added to the confusion by issuing the most complex “factsheet” in living memory which, if it was ever intended to shed some light on the subject, has almost certainly achieved the exact opposite.

So how and why has this come about? Is it a case of simply explaining the rules better or is  there something intrinsically unfair in what is going on here?

The root of the problem probably stems from the original Treasury dictat that the new state pension had to be introduced at no overall extra cost. This meant there had to be some losers as well as winners.

It also threw into focus the question of accrued rights, that is, Serps and S2P, and how best to give effect to them.

The simple solution would have been for the basic state pension to have been replaced by a new, more generous flat-rate state pension and pay out any residual rights to Serps/S2P on top, possibly as a one-off lump sum.

This would have ensured consistency of treatment with those who had contracted out and had the benefit of rebates or NI reductions in the past. But clearly that would have added to the costs so the Government had to look for an alternative way forward.

This was that any additional pension built up from Serps or S2P would be paid on top of the new pension only to the extent that when added to the old basic state pension the total exceeded the new full single-tier pension rate. This meant any accrued rights to Serps/S2P totalling less than about £35 a week at current rates would be absorbed within the new higher state pension and not have to be paid out in addition.

For those who had contracted out and had NI rebates/reductions instead of Serps/S2P accrual, a deduction based on a “rebate derived amount” would be made from the starting figure of the single-tier pension in April 2016, thus ensuring the same treatment between contracted-in and contracted-out rights.

All this has, of course, really thrown a spanner in the works of the Government’s previous claims the new pension would be a flat-rate, simple-to-understand pension which would largely eliminate the need for means-tested top-ups. It is clearly none of these things for many people, certainly not in the short-term.

The chosen treatment of accrued rights also produces a few anomalies when comparing different groups.

Someone who has never contributed to Serps or S2P, possibly has never paid any NI but has 35 years of credits, could receive a full state pension whereas someone with just a handful of years contracted-out out of, say, a 40-year NI record could well get less.

At the other end of the spectrum, someone aged 55 who at the start date next year has accrued a sufficient record in Serps/S2P from contracted-in service to have reached or exceeded the full single-tier level (£154 or thereabouts) will be stuck on that, notwithstanding having to continue paying NI for the next 10 or more years.

However, someone of a similar age with a contracted-out history and deductions might be able to claw back most if not all of the shortfall by virtue of continuing to pay NI and accruing extra pension.

All this is extremely complicated and confusing for people to get their heads round and it is hardly surprising many are now expressing their frustration about what they see as a failure of this new state pension to live up to the promises originally made for it.

The concept of having a single tier arrangement is undoubtedly a good one and over time it will hopefully become that flat-rate, easy- to-understand state pension we would all surely like to see.

At the present time, though, as we tread our way warily through the complex transitional stages, we seem to be rather a long way off ever reaching that position.

Malcolm McLean is senior consultant at Barnett Waddingham



Steve Bee: What 1950s women can teach us about the state pension

It has been suggested recently that an increase in the state pension age to 70 by the middle of this century is inevitable. The obvious good news here is that we are all likely to live longer but the bad news is equally as clear: we will never be completely sure when our state pension […]


Corbyn backs flexible state pension age

Labour leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to introduce a flexible state pension age in the UK to address concerns the existing rules could create a “two-tier” system. Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, Corbyn warns current increases in the pension age are unfair on workers with physically demanding jobs. The Islington North MP calls for […]


State pension age set to hit 70 by 2050

An increase in the state pension age to 70 is “inevitable” after figures from the Office for National Statistics revealed a sharp rise in life expectancy. ONS data published yesterday shows that over the past century life expectancy has risen from 51 years to 79 years for men and from 55 to 83 years for […]

Ros Altmann

Pensions minister rules out means-tested state pension

Pensions minister Baroness Ros Altmann has ruled out the Government returning an element of means-testing to the state pension, warning it would “undermine” saving. A recent survey of 208 advisers conducted by Aegon found only 4 per cent think the state pension will be in its current form in 30 years’ time. In addition, two […]

Retirement - thumbnail

A downhill stroll?

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has recently published new research, which once again demonstrates how the prospect of retirement is changing for older workers.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. They have to make savings somewhere to make up for the £3 million to sponsor Chinese footballers

  2. The problem comes from Steve Webbs eagerness to introduce a flat-rate pension with no new money. In doing so he managed to ride roughshod over the rights and expectations of virtually everyone.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers. Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm