This coming year, for example, the £575 annual state pension boost expected to be confirmed on November 26 is based on wage growth of 4.8% percent, far above the minimum baseline for increases. Older state pensioners also get the 4.8% triple lock boost, but their overall payments are lower, so their boost is expected to be £440 per year. These figures are the maximum boost for state pensioners with a full qualifying National Insurance record.

But although Labour has promised in its manifesto to keep the triple lock in place, fiscal experts are warning that the policy could be at risk in the future.

Given the level of outcry about the change to the Winter Fuel Payment which led to a u-turn one year later, any changes to the triple lock are sure to be met with fierce opposition.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has previously identified the triple lock as a “fiscal risk”. This is due to its so called ‘ratcheting effect’, which leaves public finances exposed to higher pension costs.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the triple lock makes planning the government’s finances difficult because the combination of its three components is difficult to forecast, as is the exact number of recipients with a full National Insurance record claiming the full state pension, and the number of years they will be claiming for.

Their current estimates for spending on the triple lock by 2050 range from £5 billion to £45 billion per year due to that uncertainty.

A report for Standard Life, which involved a survey of 6,000 people by Ipsos in June, found that less than a third (29%) of people believe the triple lock will still be in place when they reach retirement.

Catherine Foot, director of the Standard Life Centre for the Future of Retirement, said: “Standard Life’s retirement voice 2025 report shows just how uncertain people feel about their financial futures, with confidence in the future of the state pension especially low.

“Many doubt whether it will exist in its current form by the time they retire, even though there is no indication from policymakers that such a change is likely.”

Rachel Vahey, head of public policy at AJ Bell, said: “The amount of money Government spends on the state pension is already set to soar over the next few years, and the sustainability of the triple lock may once again come under scrutiny.”

If the triple lock is changed in future, the Financial Times has argued that linking state pension increases to earnings growth alone is fairer and more sustainable than the triple lock – a ‘single lock’ linked to wage growth.

According to the House of Commons Library, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has suggested that pensions should be uprated by an average of earnings growth and CPI inflation, alongside additional means-tested support for poorer pensioners.

Sir Steve Webb, the former Pensions Minister who oversaw the introduction of the triple lock, suggested that the policy could be removed once once the state pension reaches a “reasonable” share of average earnings, a system he called the ‘double lock’.

He told the i: “Once the state pension is a reasonable share of average earnings – perhaps around a third – you could then have an earnings link or a double lock.

“When we started in 2010, the pension had been linked more-or-less to prices for 30 years. This resulted in things like the notorious 75p a week pension rise in 2000, followed by £5 in the year of 2001.

“If you think about the purpose of a pension it is to preserve your standard of living when you no longer have a wage. If pensions are linked only to prices, and assuming wages generally rise faster, this would mean that the state pension falls steadily as a share of your pre-retirement income, and therefore becomes less and less adequate to do its job.”

For now, Rachel Reeves is expected to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the triple lock on state pensions for 2026, and confirm that 13 million pensioners are set to benefit from an inflation-busting rise next April.