Ministers must protect value of state pension as it is lifeline for many
The governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made huge strides in cutting pensioner poverty.
Introducing pension credit helped millions of low-income pensioners and retirement savings were boosted, But every generation faces fresh challenges and this one is no different.
The sad reality is people drawing their pension 25 years from now are set to be £800, or eight per cent, worse off per year than their counterparts today.
Four in 10 – nearly 15million people – are not saving enough for retirement. Young people are in a bind caused by the cost-of-living crisis.
Their incomes are squeezed and they are paying an outrageous amount of their net income on rent. Many people want to save more for when they retire but simply cannot afford to do so.
One of the issues the UK-wide Poverty Commission is expected to look at is the challenges facing the low-paid and the estimated three million self-employed people who are not saving into a pension.
Labour must take a values-based position into pension reform. Ministers must protect the value of the state pension as it is a lifeline for many people.
Labour is right to encourage people to save more for their retirement if they can. But they must also provide greater incentives for people on modest incomes to find the spare cash.
Part of this involves turning the corner on the cost-of-living crisis so that people have more money in their pockets. Keir Starmer has the chance to be as bold as previous Labour Prime Ministers and he must seize the opportunity.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Identity scandal
The public's right to be protected from beasts like Connor Tait does not end when they are let out jail. The 32-year-old hid in a bush and pounced on the child who was walking home from football training in 2013.
He was released from jail in 2023 and has recently changed his identity – using the name 'Connie Duncan' – while advertising himself on social media as a cleaner and dog walker.
Ash Regan MSP is right when she says the case underlines a deeply troubling reality that when sexual offenders can change their identity without proper safeguards.
How can it be right that a convicted paedophile can simply adopt a new identity and begin advertising services to enter people's homes?
Public safety must be put first. Tait should not be allowed anywhere near any family's home. We need robust checks and transparency to prevent offenders from simply reinventing themselves and potentially putting others at risk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ministers condemn 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain will be forced to pay massive reparations over climate change
Ministers have condemned a 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain could be forced to pay massive reparations for climate change. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. The Tories have warned Attorney General Lord Hermer's 'ideological obsession' with international law means the government could follow the edict. But touring broadcast studios this morning, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted the UK should not 'apologise or pay reparations' for leading the industrial revolution. He told Times Radio: 'I think that's completely unreasonable and unworkable from a legal point of view. 'Whilst we should obviously take seriously our legacy, our history, the contribution that UK has made to the world on a number of areas, I think the industrial revolution was not a bad thing. 'The fact that we have a modern industrial society is a good thing. We led on that innovation that then has been transferred around the world. But I don't think it's anything to apologise for or pay reparations for.' Challenged that the UK had obeyed a similar advisory ruling on the status of the Chagos Islands, Mr Reynolds said that 'essential national security functions' had been at stake in that case. 'I think any argument that there should be reparations paid for British history and that should fall on the British people today... I think it's a flawed judgment in my view,' he added. Campaigners have hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. 'These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation,' he said. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Epping hotel anti-migrant protests were organised by members of Neo-Nazi groups
Members of one of the UK's biggest Neo-Nazi groups have been involved in organising anti-migrant protests outside a hotel in Essex, which has led to 10 people being arrested. Two members of the far-right group Homeland can be seen as the administrators of Facebook page Epping Says No, a Facebook page with 1,500 members where the protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping have been organised. The Homeland Party was formed as a splinter group to the neo-Nazi Patriotic Alternative in April 2023, and has been described as the largest fascist group in the UK by Hope Not Hate. Two members of the party have since called on their social media pages for a 'national call to action', as the government fears another summer of unrest similar to last year when nationwide disorder broke out after three girls were stabbed to death in Southport. Essex Police has issued a dispersal order in Epping which will be in place from 2pm on Thursday until 8am on Friday, and covers an area including the town centre, transport hubs and networks such as the Tube station. The order gives officers the power to direct anyone suspected of committing anti-social behaviour, or planning to do so, to leave the area or face arrest. Dozens of anti-immigration protesters also descended on the Britannia hotel in Canary Wharf on Wednesday, after reports circulated on social media that it had been earmarked to house migrants. It has not yet received any asylum seekers, while it has been reported that the Home Office has reserved more than 400 beds at the four-star hotel. Counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism have attended both Epping and Canary Wharf, with Essex Police forced to deny claims they had 'bussed' them to the demonstration on Sunday evening. Protests were first sparked outside the Bell Hotel nearly two weeks ago, after 38-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker Hadush Kebatu was accused of sexually assaulting a schoolgirl within days of arriving in the UK on a small boat. He denies the charges. Chairperson of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, wrote in The Telegraph that the disorder was 'not just a troubling one-off', adding: 'It was a signal flare. A reminder of how little it takes for tensions to erupt and how ill-prepared we remain to deal with it.' She said that local commanders across the country are forced to choose between 'keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Ms Lynch said: 'A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.'
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's pension crisis is about to get even worse
The Government's review of pensions is asking some of the right questions. Top of the list is the age at which they should start to be paid. It is not a given that the state should fund the last third of someone's life, regardless of need. That is a choice, and a recent one. When the Old Age Pension began in 1909, it was paid from 70 and you had to have lived in the UK for 20 years and to be of 'good character'. It was means-tested, too – you needed to earn less than £21 a year to qualify. So, Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is right to look first at the state pension age. And right to commission a report on the proportion of adult life spent in retirement. When the modern state pension was introduced in 1948, a 65-year-old could expect to receive it for just 13 years, about a sixth of their life expectancy. She is right, too, to investigate ways to boost pension savings – 8pc of earnings is not enough – and to broaden the number of people putting money aside for their retirement. Only half of working-age people are doing that, a fifth of the self-employed and fewer still of some ethnic minorities. That's not good. As ever, when it comes to pensions policy, there is also a have-cake-and-eat-it problem. The Government spends about 5pc of GDP on pensions – more than £120bn last year – but it persists with the fantasy that the amount paid to pensioners can rise into the future by the highest of earnings, inflation or 2.5pc. The triple lock is unaffordable. The unavoidable truth about pensions is that small changes in a range of unpredictable variables make a big difference when they are compounded over the decades that we now expect to live after we have stopped working. This is true for the good changes that government policy and personal choice can deliver. And for the bad ones that we can't do much about. That's why the Government is asking only some of the right questions. There are others it needs to address, all of which are difficult. The biggest pensions challenge may well be one that no one is talking about. This all became abundantly clear to me recently when I helped a colleague out with a deceptively simple question. He wanted to know what rate of investment return he needed to aim for in order to achieve the comfortable retirement he was hoping to enjoy. To answer that, I employed my pathetically rudimentary Excel skills to build a spreadsheet with a few variables that we could play with until we arrived at a plausible plan. I plugged in how much he had saved; how much he intended to put aside in future, and for how long; when he planned to wind down into semi-retirement and when he would stop completely; when he would take the state pension; and the return he would aim to achieve on his investments both before and after he stopped working. I ran the numbers from his current age of 52 until, with luck, he turns 90. Crucially, I had to make some quite big assumptions, the most important of which were that the triple lock would continue throughout his life and that the Bank of England would succeed in hitting its 2pc inflation target. By tweaking all these variables and assumptions, we were able to monitor their impact on the cumulative size of his pension pot. As you might expect, saving more for longer in an only moderately inflationary environment ended well. Working for a bit longer made a big difference. Accepting a lower income in retirement helped. None of this is rocket science, and probably doesn't require a Pensions Commission to confirm. That said, I was surprised by some of the things we discovered. One was the remarkable power of starting early. The principal reason that my colleague was pleasantly surprised by his required rate of investment return was that he had spent the previous 30 years studiously paying into his company pension, supported by a generous employer. The first additional question the Government needs to find an answer to is how to get young people engaged with their pensions. It may be boring, but it is not as boring as being old and poor. The second thing the spreadsheet taught us was the power of delay. Working just a few more years, even in a part-time capacity, can transform the arithmetic of our pension savings. Paying in for longer and taking out for less time, together with a few extra years of compound investment growth, is a magical combination. Find what you enjoy and keep doing it. But the biggest eye-opener for me was the devastating impact of even a modest uptick in inflation. A quick and easy way to make your money run out is to stop work and then try to maintain your standard of living by increasing the amount you draw down from your pension in line with rising prices. For my colleague, nudging up the assumed inflation rate from 2pc to 3pc was the difference between a £700,000 pension pot at the age of 90 and running out of cash completely a couple of years earlier. The pensions crisis that no one is talking about, therefore, is on the face of it nothing to do with pensions at all. Yes, more people need to save more, to start earlier and to carry on for longer. The Government has a role to play in encouraging all of those. But it, and the Bank of England, has an even bigger task. To keep inflation at a level where it doesn't blow our plans out of the water.
