Five questions answered on the TUC’s claims on pension changes

Will they make people worse off?

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) today released a report stating that government plans to scrap the second pension in 2016 will result in people being worse off. We answer five questions on the TUC report.

According to the TUC, how will people be worse off once the single tier pension comes into affect?

The report says that by scrapping the second pension and introducing a single tier pension anyone who has a long work history is likely to be worse off buy £2,000 a year.

For example, the report claims anyone on a median income of £26,000 a year, and who has a full employment record, will be worse off as soon as the new pension is introduced.

If they retired in 2030 they would receive £1,500 a year less than under the current system.

Someone retiring 10 years after that would be £2,000 a year worse off.

"Many low and middle-income private sector workers, particularly those several decades away from retirement, could be thousands of pounds a year worse off in retirement," said Frances O'Grady, the TUC general secretary.

The second state pension was introduced 10 years ago to help those on low income. Today around 20 million Britons are currently part of the scheme.

What do the government say?

The government say the changes will make people better off.

"The flat rate will provide a fair base, set above the basic level of means test, helping people to know how much they need to save for the kind of retirement they want," said a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) told the BBC.

What has the Work and Pensions Committee said about the planned changes? 

In April this year they said they supported the idea of a single tier system.

"It will mean more state pension for many people, particularly low-earners, in the short to medium term,” the MPs said.

They did, however, conclude that the government needs to explain it better to the public.

What have other analysts said?

An Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) report found that people born later than the mid-1980s would be worse off when the single-tier pension was introduced.

The report said low earners would be £1,000 a year poorer, while high earners would lose as much as £2,300 a year.

However, it concluded that on average, women would be about £270 a year better off and men would be £81 better off.

What are the details of the new state single tier pension?

It will be introduced in 2016 and paid at a flat rate worth £144 a week. A person will need 35 years of contributions.

What do the changes actually mean? Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn challenged by Labour MPs to sack Ken Livingstone from defence review

Former mayor of London criticised at PLP meeting over comments on 7 July bombings. 

After Jeremy Corbyn's decision to give Labour MPs a free vote over air strikes in Syria, tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meeting was less fractious than it could have been. But one grandee was still moved to declare that the "ferocity" of the attacks on the leader made it the most "uplifting" he had attended.

Margaret Beckett, the former foreign secretary, told the meeting: "We cannot unite the party if the leader's office is determined to divide us." Several MPs said afterwards that many of those who shared Corbyn's opposition to air strikes believed he had mishandled the process by appealing to MPs over the heads of the shadow cabinet and then to members. David Winnick declared that those who favoured military action faced a "shakedown" and deselection by Momentum activists. "It is completely unacceptable. They are a party within a party," he said of the Corbyn-aligned group. The "huge applause" for Hilary Benn, who favours intervention, far outweighed that for the leader, I'm told. 

There was also loud agreement when Jack Dromey condemned Ken Livingstone for blaming Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq for the 7 July 2005 bombings. Along with Angela Smith MP, Dromey demanded that Livingstone be sacked as the co-chair of Labour's defence review. Significantly, Benn said aftewards that he agreed with every word Dromey had said. Corbyn's office has previously said that it is up to the NEC, not the leader, whether the former London mayor holds the position. In reference to 7 July, an aide repeated Corbyn's statement that he preferred to "remember the brilliant words Ken used after 7/7". 

As on previous occasions, MPs complained that the leader failed to answer the questions that were put to him. A shadow minister told me that he "dodged" one on whether he believed the UK should end air strikes against Isis in Iraq. In reference to Syria, a Corbyn aide said afterwards that "There was significant support for the leader. There was a wide debate, with people speaking on both sides of the arguments." After David Cameron's decision to call a vote on air strikes for Wednesday, leaving only a day for debate, the number of Labour MPs backing intervention is likely to fall. One shadow minister told me that as few as 40-50 may back the government, though most expect the total to be closer to the original figure of 99. 

At the end of another remarkable day in Labour's history, a Corbyn aide concluded: "It was always going to be a bumpy ride when you have a leader who was elected by a large number outside parliament but whose support in the PLP is quite limited. There are a small number who find it hard to come to terms with that result."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.