Baroness Altmann has hit out at coverage of her comments on changing the triple lock pensions policy, saying her words have been “grossly misrepresented”.

The former Pensions Minister, who quit her role last month, featured on some of the national newspaper front pages at the weekend, after suggesting the triple lock should be scrapped after 2020.

The long time pensions campaigner says she has been saddened by the upset that retirees have expressed since the story was reported.

At the weekend, she had argued that the policy was unsustainable in the longer term due to the huge cost.

This week, her comments won backing from the Institute for Economic Affairs and Centre for Policy Studies.

But, writing on her blog, she said how unhappy she was at the way her words had been used.

She said: “My comments about the future of state pension uprating have certainly caused widespread debate. Unfortunately, they have also been grossly misrepresented. I am sad about this because it has caused unnecessary upset to many pensioners and that would never be my intention.

“I don’t know if the mis-reporting has been because of a desire to have catchy, controversial headlines, but I think it is partly perhaps because people aren’t used to someone talking about pensions policy from a long-term perspective and assume anyone proposing policies has to be thinking of the short-term. That is not my approach here.

“Anyway, my clear position is that I have always supported and continue support keeping the commitment to the Triple Lock on basic and new state pension until 2020. This is all that the Government has committed itself too now as well.”

Beyond 2020 there is a question mark, she said, suggesting it could become a double lock instead.

The Government has indicated it is still committed to the triple lock, which was a Conservative party manifesto commitment.

Ryan Bourne, the IEA’s Head of Public Policy, would welcome the triple-lock being abolished.

He said: “If the government thinks the value of the state pension should be increased, it should set an explicit and signposted target for what it should be, to be achieved by a certain date. From then on, the pension could be pegged either to price level increases (to protect real incomes), or earnings growth (to protect pensioners’ relative incomes), whichever is the preferred aim of policy.

“Using the triple-lock to achieve this “level target” is an utterly bizarre approach given it is driven by various variables. If inflation, for example, was higher than both 2.5 per cent and earnings growth every year for a decade, the real value of the pension would be protected, but no increase in the real value of the pension would be achieved.

“Those who support the triple-lock on the basis that the state pension is not generous enough should therefore be challenged to say what they think the level should be and indicate when we can replace this mechanism with something that makes sense. This is important, because right now the triple-lock is fuelling both confusion about what the state pension is there to achieve and a sense of entitlement that pensioners should enjoy an ever-more generous income from government.”

The Centre for Policy Studies said in a statement: “Even though the fiscal burden of the triple-lock is clear, some argue that pensioners’ living standards need to catch up with the rest of the population.

“This claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, however. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that Pensioners now have higher incomes on average than the rest of the population, once housing costs and family composition are taken into account.

“The triple-lock policy is economically unsustainable and it is difficult to justify going forward. The policy needs to be revised but doing so will be fraught with political difficulties.”