Latest news with #Conservative government
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Could the state pension age really rise to 74?
A new review of the state pension age has triggered speculation that it may have to rise substantially to contain rapidly rising costs. The state pension age is going to rise from 66 to 67 within the next couple of years, and the next increase after that is now officially up for debate. The Government is required by law to review the state pension age every six years, so it has ordered two reports which will look at when to hike to 68. But a recent report by independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warned that without reform of the state pension triple lock , the retirement age would have to rise to 74 by 2069. Could this really happen? We explain what you need to know about the state pension age and why it could increase. What is happening to the state pension age? The studies, one by the government's actuary and the other by an independent expert, are expected to consider the link between when you can draw the state pension and life expectancy, intergenerational fairness, and the bill borne by taxpayers. The state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year if you have paid enough qualifying national insurance years to receive the full amount. The qualifying age will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. The next rise to 68 is technically not scheduled until the mid 2040s, which will affect those born from 6 April 1977. The last two reports in 2017 and 2023 recommended speeding up the increase to 68, but the Conservative government ignored them, and current Labour leaders could do the same. Will the state pension age have to rise faster? The Government has effectively, if not in so many words, told the experts working on the next two reports to operate under the assumption that the triple lock pledge will remain in place indefinitely. This means that the state pension increases every year by the highest of inflation , average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of this parliament. Pension experts are weighing in on the chances of a state pension age rise to 68 in the near future, and the trade-offs with the triple lock in terms of the cost to taxpayers. A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed to government modelling on how to limit public spending on the state pension to below 6 per cent of national income. To achieve this AND retain the triple lock state pension guarantee, it worked out the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2048–49, and then jump to 74 by 2068–69 - which would be bad news for people in their 30s and younger now. Nerves were also rattled lately when Denmark's government moved to hike its retirement age to 70 by 2040. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the minimum pension age for accessing workplace and other private retirement savings is due to rise from 55 to 57 from April 2028. Governments have in the past tended to keep the state pension and private pension ages roughly 10 years apart, so any future increases could well continue to happen in tandem. This combined with a faster rise in the state pension age could cause a serious headache for those hoping to retire earlier. Triple lock is 'elephant in the room' 'The third state pension age review will be watched like a hawk by swathes of middle-aged workers,' says Jason Hollands, managing director of Evelyn Partners. 'The triple lock is not within the remit of the Commission, but it is in some respects another elephant in the room, as while it remains it seems inevitable that state pension ages must be raised. 'That's not so much a problem for wealthier savers who can fund a few years of retirement wholly from private income. 'It's more of one for less well-off workers who might have to work until and even beyond state pension age, and then also might not have as many years of life expectancy to draw on the state pension.. 'Would a lower state pension at an earlier age be fairer than a higher one at a later age? It's a question worth asking.' State pension costs are set to spiral 'There is an increase to age 68 pencilled in for 2046, but a faster increase is definitely on the cards,' says Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell. 'The first two reviews of the state pension age advocated bringing this forward, but successive governments have treated the issue like a hot potato. 'This latest state pension age review, however, may eventually force the government's hand. 'State pension benefits are one of the single biggest expenses for the Treasury and account for more than 80 per cent of the £175billion pensioner welfare bill. 'Without policy intervention, state pension costs are set to spiral to nearly 8 per cent of GDP over the next 50 years based on the current trajectory, up from 5.2 per cent today. 'The second state pension age review in 2023 recommended that the increase to 68 should be introduced between 2041 and 2043 to help reduce costs, although the government under Rishi Sunak opted not to commit to that timetable. 'However, the new Labour government may feel it needs to consider the rise to age 68 more closely, particularly if it wants to demonstrate steps toward long-term fiscal prudence.' Triple lock vs state pension age - a hard choice 'The Government instructs the reviewers to assume "current policies regarding the entitlement and value of the state pension remain unchanged over the long term",' says Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon. 'The future value of the state pension is currently set by the triple lock. The Government has not committed to retaining the triple lock beyond this Parliament but has instructed the review to assume it continues indefinitely. 'While some may take comfort in this, it could be false comfort. The purpose of the review is to look at the age the state pension starts from and the role this plays in managing the long-term sustainability of the state pension. 'As other reports have shown, the triple lock puts the long-term sustainability of the state pension under huge pressure. So the conclusions from the review may be that if the triple lock continues, state pension age will have to go up further and faster than if it didn't continue.' 'For those already receiving their state pension, any threat to the triple lock will be bad news. 'But for those who haven't yet reached state pension age, the consequence of an ongoing triple lock could be having to wait extra years before receiving their state pension. 'That's a hard choice, but it's one we need to face up to as a nation. Undertaking this independent review will allow the Government to set out these choices to the voting public.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Could the state pension age really rise to 74? Why the 'triple lock' may mean a longer wait for younger workers
A new review of the state pension age has triggered speculation that it may have to rise substantially to contain rapidly rising costs. The state pension age is going to rise from 66 to 67 within the next couple of years, and the next increase after that is now officially up for debate. The Government is required by law to review the state pension age every six years, so it has ordered two reports which will look at when to hike to 68. But a recent report by independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warned that without reform of the state pension triple lock, the retirement age would have to rise to 74 by 2069. Could this really happen? We explain what you need to know about the state pension age and why it could increase. What is happening to the state pension age? The studies, one by the government's actuary and the other by an independent expert, are expected to consider the link between when you can draw the state pension and life expectancy, intergenerational fairness, and the bill borne by taxpayers. The state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year if you have paid enough qualifying national insurance years to receive the full amount. The qualifying age will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028. The next rise to 68 is technically not scheduled until the mid 2040s, which will affect those born from 6 April 1977. The last two reports in 2017 and 2023 recommended speeding up the increase to 68, but the Conservative government ignored them, and current Labour leaders could do the same. > How much does a comfortable retirement cost? What YOU will need Will the state pension age have to rise faster? The Government has effectively, if not in so many words, told the experts working on the next two reports to operate under the assumption that the triple lock pledge will remain in place indefinitely. This means that the state pension increases every year by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of this parliament. Pension experts are weighing in on the chances of a state pension age rise to 68 in the near future, and the trade-offs with the triple lock in terms of the cost to taxpayers. A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed to government modelling on how to limit public spending on the state pension to below 6 per cent of national income. To achieve this AND retain the triple lock state pension guarantee, it worked out the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2048–49, and then jump to 74 by 2068–69 - which would be bad news for people in their 30s and younger now. Nerves were also rattled lately when Denmark's government moved to hike its retirement age to 70 by 2040. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the minimum pension age for accessing workplace and other private retirement savings is due to rise from 55 to 57 from April 2028. Governments have in the past tended to keep the state pension and private pension ages roughly 10 years apart, so any future increases could well continue to happen in tandem. This combined with a faster rise in the state pension age could cause a serious headache for those hoping to retire earlier. > In your 30s or younger? How to plan ahead for a higher state pension age Triple lock is 'elephant in the room' 'The third state pension age review will be watched like a hawk by swathes of middle-aged workers,' says Jason Hollands, managing director of Evelyn Partners. 'The triple lock is not within the remit of the Commission, but it is in some respects another elephant in the room, as while it remains it seems inevitable that state pension ages must be raised. 'That's not so much a problem for wealthier savers who can fund a few years of retirement wholly from private income. 'It's more of one for less well-off workers who might have to work until and even beyond state pension age, and then also might not have as many years of life expectancy to draw on the state pension.. 'Would a lower state pension at an earlier age be fairer than a higher one at a later age? It's a question worth asking.' State pension costs are set to spiral 'There is an increase to age 68 pencilled in for 2046, but a faster increase is definitely on the cards,' says Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell. 'The first two reviews of the state pension age advocated bringing this forward, but successive governments have treated the issue like a hot potato. 'This latest state pension age review, however, may eventually force the government's hand. 'State pension benefits are one of the single biggest expenses for the Treasury and account for more than 80 per cent of the £175billion pensioner welfare bill. 'Without policy intervention, state pension costs are set to spiral to nearly 8 per cent of GDP over the next 50 years based on the current trajectory, up from 5.2 per cent today. 'The second state pension age review in 2023 recommended that the increase to 68 should be introduced between 2041 and 2043 to help reduce costs, although the government under Rishi Sunak opted not to commit to that timetable. 'However, the new Labour government may feel it needs to consider the rise to age 68 more closely, particularly if it wants to demonstrate steps toward long-term fiscal prudence.' Triple lock vs state pension age - a hard choice 'The Government instructs the reviewers to assume "current policies regarding the entitlement and value of the state pension remain unchanged over the long term",' says Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon. 'The future value of the state pension is currently set by the triple lock. The Government has not committed to retaining the triple lock beyond this Parliament but has instructed the review to assume it continues indefinitely. 'While some may take comfort in this, it could be false comfort. The purpose of the review is to look at the age the state pension starts from and the role this plays in managing the long-term sustainability of the state pension. 'As other reports have shown, the triple lock puts the long-term sustainability of the state pension under huge pressure. So the conclusions from the review may be that if the triple lock continues, state pension age will have to go up further and faster than if it didn't continue.' 'For those already receiving their state pension, any threat to the triple lock will be bad news. 'But for those who haven't yet reached state pension age, the consequence of an ongoing triple lock could be having to wait extra years before receiving their state pension. 'That's a hard choice, but it's one we need to face up to as a nation. Undertaking this independent review will allow the Government to set out these choices to the voting public.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
UK secretly resettled thousands of Afghans after major data leak raised safety fears
Thousands of Afghans have been secretly relocated to the UK after a data leak by the British military revealed their identities and raised fears that they could be targeted by the Taliban. A dataset containing the details of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to move to the UK after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was released in error in 2022, and parts of it were later published online, British Defence Secretary John Healey said on Tuesday. That prompted the previous Conservative government to establish a secret programme to resettle the Afghans — many of whom worked with British forces — and their families. The Afghanistan Response Route, set up in April 2024, was made public on Tuesday after the UK's current Labour government lifted a legal ruling known as a superinjunction that had been obtained by the former government in order to keep the scheme secret. About 4,500 people — 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to the UK under the programme, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of £850 million (€979 million). However, the ultimate cost of the incident is expected to be higher as the British government is also facing litigation from people affected by the breach. Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to lawmakers in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon, and said that he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the breach. "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner," he said. Related Taliban leader declares Western laws unnecessary in Afghanistan British couple arrested in Afghanistan to be released 'as soon as possible,' Taliban says 'Incredibly serious data breach' The blunder by an unnamed official at the Ministry of Defence (MOD) was a "serious departmental error" and a result of a spreadsheet being emailed "outside of authorised government systems" in early 2022, according to Healey. The spreadsheet contained the details of 18,714 Afghan nationals who had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021. The MoD only became aware of the breach in August 2023, after the excerpts of the database posted on Facebook, according to British media reports. Barings Law, a law firm that is representing hundreds of the victims, accused the government of trying to conceal the truth from the public. "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public," said Adnan Malik, head of data protection at the firm. "It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region." Related Tens of thousands of Afghans return from Pakistan after deadline Australian whistleblower David McBride loses appeal over Afghan war crimes leak About 36,000 Afghans in total have been relocated to the UK under various resettlement routes since the fall of Kabul in August 2021, according to the ministry of defence. In the summer of 2021, the US decided to lead a withdrawal of western forces — including British troops — from Afghanistan, which allowed the Taliban to seize power. That left tens of thousands of people who had helped the UK and other nations during 20 years of western military presence in the nation at risk of retribution from the Taliban.
Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Times
How spies and soldiers will face the blame over Afghan data breach
On a dark winter's day in December 2023, John Healey was escorted into a secure briefing room at the Ministry of Defence and handed a brown envelope. The shadow defence secretary had just received a superinjunction, prohibiting him from repeating a word of what he was about to be told by James Heappey, the armed forces minister. The contents of their discussion would not become public for another 18 months, as the Conservative government used the courts to prevent The Times and other newspapers from revealing a catastrophic data leak involving thousands of Afghans seeking refuge in Britain from the Taliban. Healey left the building shocked by the gravity of the situation, knowing he would almost certainly have to handle the fallout when the veil of secrecy was finally lifted. That moment arrived on Tuesday. In parliament, Healey, now the defence secretary, told MPs how a defence official had inadvertently leaked a list containing the details of nearly 19,000 Afghans in February 2022. It also contained the names of more than 100 British special forces troops, MI6 spies and military officers who had vouched for some of the Afghans. The previous government's response had been to spend hundreds of millions of pounds bringing several thousand impacted individuals and their families to the UK via a secret Afghan Response Route (ARR), without parliament or voters knowing. Sir Keir Starmer and shadow senior cabinet ministers had been looped in shortly after entering government but Healey's wife only discovered what her husband had been dealing with when he delivered the statement. After days of recriminations and Conservative buck-passing, many questions around the scandal remain unanswered this weekend. In Westminster, the defence committee has vowed to investigate the cover-up, with Sir Ben Wallace and Sir Grant Shapps, the former defence secretaries, likely to be interrogated when MPs return from summer recess. • Grant Shapps 'trying to rewrite history' on Afghan leak While both have defended the superinjunction, Rishi Sunak, the prime minister who presided over it, has not said a word and is overseas. The intelligence and security committee (ISC), a body made up of peers and MPs that scrutinises the UK's spy agencies, is furious it was kept in the dark and has demanded a host of government documents around the leak and the cover-up. It has statutory powers, and will launch its own inquiry in due course. Lord Beamish, who chairs the committee, is equally incensed by MI6's failure to inform the committee of the potential disclosure of its agents' identities. Despite providing quarterly updates to the ISC on any major developments, the service failed to mention the issue at any point. The ISC has demanded answers from MI6 and the committee is set to summon Sir Richard Moore, the outgoing chief of the intelligence service, or his successor, Blaise Metreweli, to explain the omission. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, has also commissioned a review into how the government gagged senior parliamentary figures, himself and the Lord Speaker included, and the constitutional issues this raises. He hopes to update MPs either on Monday or Tuesday. But the biggest unknown is the long-term impact on public perception of parliament, the two main political parties, and British democracy itself. By the time Healey was ushered into the MoD's briefing room in 2023 he had already been made aware of a series of failings relating to the Afghan evacuation. In September 2021, a month after Kabul fell to the Taliban, he had pressed Wallace, the defence secretary, over a human error that resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list. Wallace apologised and insisted action had been taken to prevent it from happening again; earlier this year, the Afghans affected were told they would be able to claim up to £4,000 in compensation. • How top military chief's role in Afghan data leak was hidden But by August 2023, Healey had identified a total of four data breaches associated with the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), the main route for bringing over personnel who had served alongside the UK armed forces. On August 13, he released them to the media in a 'Dossier of Failure'. He would not know until later, but the following day the MoD discovered it had another leak — this time bigger than any before. It was decided three months later that he should be informed. Healey's allies believe this was only because he was continually grilling Tory ministers on problems with the Arap scheme. Healey received one more briefing on the secret Afghan operation in opposition, early in the new year. By the time he entered the MoD as defence secretary in July last year, the scheme had been running for months. But beyond a monthly trickle of Afghan relocations to the UK, little had changed. Healey believed it needed to, and was alarmed not just at what his predecessors had left him to deal with, but the apparent secretive mindset that had set in among civil servants. This complaint has been echoed by a number of senior aides who worked for Sunak in No 10. 'For the scale of catastrophe it was, I was very surprised at the lack of urgency from officials in getting people out [of Afghanistan],' said one. 'There was quite a churn of officials working on it.' Healey began to push for a reassessment of the threat posed by the Taliban to the Afghans on the list — the reason for the superinjunction remaining in place — but even this took months of internal debate within Whitehall to get started. • Who knew about the Afghan data breach — and who was in the dark? At the beginning of this year, Paul Rimmer, a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, was finally commissioned to lead a review. By June, Rimmer had determined that the leaked document had not spread as widely as feared and that its value to the Taliban, as well as its risk to the Afghans named in it, had diminished sufficiently. Decisions were finally made: only a portion of the Afghans had a legitimate right to come to Britain, many of whom had already arrived. The secret route would end and the MoD would no longer fight to keep the superinjunction in place. Healey's team believe that Tory ministers were genuinely determined to protect the Afghans when they first sought the superinjunction. But as time wore on, they suspect a desire to protect reputations crept into the decision-making process. While Shapps has in recent days expressed 'surprise' that it lasted as long as it did, they point out that last summer he successfully appealed against a decision to lift the superinjunction, right in the middle of the general election campaign. Healey is determined that the culture of cover-ups and the persistent issues with data security — stretching well beyond Afghanistan — are permanently resolved in the MoD. A new chief information officer has been brought in and, in January, new software was introduced on MoD computers to more securely share data. Recently a review of the Afghan data leak was completed to ensure information was being held at the right security classification and in the right location. That no one has been sacked for the scandal has also raised uncomfortable questions about accountability. To this end, Healey's long-term defence reforms will establish clearer chains of command. Under a new military strategic headquarters, the chiefs of the RAF, army and navy will formally report to the chief of defence staff for the first time, with Healey overseeing a department more clearly focused on policy development. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, is also joining Healey as his strategic director and will be responsible for challenging and reviewing all major decisions. Chalmers is hugely experienced in foreign, defence and security policy: he was previously a visiting professor in the war studies department at King's College London and served as an adviser to Jack Straw when he was foreign secretary. Healey has described him as a 'one-man intellectual powerhouse'. An MoD source said: 'We're continuing to drive the biggest defence reforms in 50 years — that means proper accountability, better transparency for parliament and a stronger internal challenge to the MoD status quo.' And yet, the mistakes keep happening. This weekend, The Sunday Times has revealed how a publication associated with a senior British Army regiment has been routinely disclosing the identities of special forces personnel in its ranks. The MoD was warned about the security breach two months ago, and yet the documents are still online after they initially appeared to have been taken down. Healey has demanded an investigation. In No 10, Starmer's aides are also contemplating their next steps, amid growing calls for a public inquiry. This has not yet been ruled out, although Downing Street believes the defence committee and the ISC should be given space to conduct their own investigations. However, the wider consequences of the Afghan debacle will persist. According to government sources, approximately 24,000 impacted Afghans and their families will come to the UK via all available schemes. Of those, 4,500 Afghans have already arrived or are en route via the ARR and given indefinite leave to remain. This allows them to apply for British residency and, ultimately, citizenship. A further 2,400 have been earmarked for relocation over the coming months, with the total costs associated with the secret route expected to hit £850 million. On average, impacted Afghans have brought eight family members with them — the highest number is reported to have been 22 — placing added pressure on already tight housing stocks and stretched public services. Officials had originally hoped they would bring only their wife and two children. They have each been offered 'transitional accommodation' lasting up to nine months. Many of the Afghans clandestinely flown to the UK were originally put up in disused army barracks, under an operation codenamed 'Lazurite'. In 2023, Weeton Barracks near Blackpool was used to house more than 50 families, although it is unclear whether they were individuals caught up in the leak. Many Afghans were then moved into service accommodation, which is usually set aside for military personnel and their families. At its peak, 12 per cent of military homes were being used, although that has fallen below 2 per cent. The MoD has now decided to end the scheme. Others, however, have been dispersed to various local authorities around the country to be housed, including, in some cases, hotels. The secrecy around the Afghans has made locating them difficult, although Bracknell Forest council in Berkshire, which covers the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, said it had received about 320 new Afghan residents alone this year. The sudden influx appears to have created tension with locals. In May, the council was forced to issue an explanatory note saying: 'The council and its partners are aware of some misinformation circulating regarding our new Afghan families. While this misinformation is being circulated by a small number of individuals, we want to make sure all our residents have the facts. We would like to reiterate that our new families are not illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees. They have indefinite leave to remain and so are now UK residents.' A year on from a summer of rioting prompted by the Southport atrocity, there are growing concerns over the national impact on community cohesion — a point also raised in Rimmer's report. No 10 argues the government's response has reduced the possibility of such violence reoccurring, noting that the strategy for announcing the Afghan leak drew heavily on Starmer's response to the Southport riots and the delayed charging of Axel Rudakubana with terror and biological weapons offences. A senior source said: 'We know we are operating in a very low trust environment, which is why we are being as transparent as humanly possible.' A YouGov poll published on Wednesday suggests this approach is working, with 49 per cent of respondents supporting the superinjunction and the need to protect the Afghans, compared with 20 per cent who disapproved. However, the attacks on police officers during violent protests outside an asylum hotel in Epping, Essex, over an unrelated arrest of an asylum seeker on suspicion of alleged sexual assaults in the town, has highlighted how quickly things could escalate again. Luke Tryl, director of the think tank More in Common, said: 'The leak is likely to deepen voters' frustrations about the competence of government and the civil service, confirming their suspicions that they are just not up to the job.' For now, the greatest risk for Starmer is that the Afghan leak entrenches the belief that Britain's political system is broken, regardless of which party is in charge.
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Thousands of Afghans and families brought to UK after data breach
Some 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have now been brought to Britain or are in transit. (EPA Images pic) LONDON : Thousands of Afghans who worked with the UK government and their families were brought to Britain in a secret programme after a 2022 data breach put their lives at risk, a minister revealed today. Defence minister John Healey unveiled the scheme to parliament after the UK High Court today lifted a super-gag order banning reports of the events. In February 2022 a spreadsheet containing the names and details of almost 19,000 Afghans who had asked to be relocated to Britain was accidentally leaked by a UK official just six months after the Taliban seized Kabul, Healey said. 'This was a serious departmental error,' Healey said, adding 'lives may have been at stake'. The previous Conservative government put in place a secret programme to help those 'judged to be at the highest risk of reprisals by the Taliban', he said. Some 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have now been brought to Britain or are in transit under the programme known as the Afghan Response Route at a cost of around £400 million, Healey said. They are among some 36,000 Afghans who have been accepted by Britain under different schemes since the August 2021 fall of Kabul. As Labour's opposition defence spokesman Healey was briefed on the scheme in December 2023, but the Conservative government asked a court to impose a 'super-injunction' banning any mention of it in parliament or by the press. When Labour came to power in July 2024, the scheme was in full swing, but Healey said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House'. 'Ministers decided not to tell parliamentarians at an earlier stage about the data incident, as the widespread publicity would increase the risk of the Taliban obtaining the dataset,' he added. Healey set up a review of the scheme on becoming defence minister in the new Labour government. This concluded there was 'very little intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution'. The Afghan Response Route has now been closed, the minister said, apologising for the data breach which 'should never have happened'.
