Pensions Triple Lock
Tuesday, 13 October 2026
Contributions
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)Labour
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan for the future uprating of the state pension. Security and dignity in later life is a mission that has run through every Labour Government. Harold Wilson was the first to introduce the statutory link with earnings. The creation of pension credit in the early 2000s increased the incomes of the poorest pensioners and saw pensioner poverty halve under the last Labour Government. In our 2024 manifesto, we said we would keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament—that is a promise that we will keep to pensioners. Keeping that promise means that this year the full new state pension is rising by £575. It is set to be over £2,000 a year more by the end of this Parliament compared with when we took office in 2024. That will take the new state pension to over 30% of average earnings by the end of the Parliament and it is forecast to be a record high. In the future, we will adjust the triple lock to make those gains permanent but also to put the state pension on a sustainable basis. Let me set out how that will work and deliver a state pension that rises each and every year. The uprating mechanism will retain its current three elements. There will be a universal state pension that protects against inflation, ensures a material rise every year, and enables pensioners to share in the wealth of the nation as wages go up. From April 2030, the state pension will continue to go up by the highest of inflation, 2.5% or what is required to maintain its record high level against average earnings. That will lock in for the future all the gains from the triple lock up until April 2030. The adjusted mechanism will mean that the state pension grows in line with earnings over time, instead of outpacing them as is the case with the current triple lock. It will end what is known as the ratchet effect, which makes the triple lock consume a greater share of national wealth over time, making reform at some stage inevitable. In simple terms, it will mean the state pension will continue to rise but not to permanently grow as a share of average earnings. We know that people want security in retirement and we are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners. Under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to include suggestions on further supporting lower-income pensioners in its final report, to be delivered next year. A good retirement, however, is about more than income. It is about security and peace of mind too, which is why it is so important that the savings from the change will make a significant contribution to a new settlement for older people: a rising, more sustainable state pension alongside free personal care through a new national care service. This is a policy that is better for pensioners, better for families and better for the NHS. It is better for pensioners because so many worry about what will happen to them in their final years; better for families because those worries are shared by children and grandchildren who want to know that their elderly relatives will be looked after when they need it; and better for the NHS because it will ease the pressure we see today, where failings in our social care system mean many pensioners are kept in hospital longer than they need to be because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction—the cost of turning away from this—is more pressure on the NHS, more ambulance call-outs, more A&E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be. That is why change is needed. The triple lock has of course been the subject of much debate. Economists and commentators have proposed a range of options—as has the Conservative party, over the years—from removing the earnings link to scrapping the triple lock altogether. Some have called for the state pension to be means-tested. We have rejected those proposals. We believe that our plan is the right answer to a difficult question that has been ignored for far too long. I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his work in this area, which has helped to ensure that we can have a system going forward that is sustainable and retains, in an adjusted way, the three current elements of the triple lock system. It will mean that the state pension will not continue to outpace average earnings as it would have done under the current triple lock. The savings from the changes will reduce spending by an estimated £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, rising substantially to around £50 billion a year by 2050. The pension and social care changes are a new settlement that puts the universal state pension on a more sustainable footing, so that it is there for decades to come, while giving pensioners and older people a better deal on social care. Pensioners can be confident that they will have a rising state pension every year. They can also be confident that we are sorting out one of the most difficult problems the country has faced for a long time—the issue of social care. A new settlement for pensioners, a rising pension, a sustainable system, and a plan to fix our social care system: that is what we will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)Conservative
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)Conservative
Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare? Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy. The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances. And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure? Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question? The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects? Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming. This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised. All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?
I listened to the shadow Secretary of State carefully outline her opposition to our plans. The trouble for her is that so many in her party agree with the case for change. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for example, has said that we should “unpick” the triple lock. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called it “simply not affordable” and described it as a “Ponzi system”. The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), actually wrote the 2017 manifesto that pledged to replace it with a double lock. But my favourite is Lord Gove, who told LBC that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock he would “declare that I will be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy in Walthamstow.” I look forward to seeing him at the end of the Victoria line at the next election with a red rosette on his chest! I could go on, but we would be here all day. Let me just say that I have a file as thick as my morning porridge full of quotes from Tories saying that the triple lock is unsustainable and will have to be changed. They say it in private, they say it before they join the Front Bench and they say it after they leave it, but the shadow Secretary of State did not say it. That leaves her with some questions. How will she fund her opposition to what we have announced? Will it be, as when the Tories were in government before, through faster and faster rises in the state pension age, asking people to work into their 70s before they even get a pension at all? If she will not tell us that, can she tell us how they would fund the future of social care? Should we simply add that to the list of unfunded tax promises that they come out with on an almost-weekly basis? Stamp duty, inheritance tax, national insurance, private schools—all funded from fantasy welfare savings that they never manage to achieve in office. The right hon. Lady spent her time attacking the system that her Government designed, created and legislated for. She spoke about welfare bills rising. In this Parliament, they are rising at half the rate as in her party’s last Parliament in power. She spoke about pensioner poverty. It rose under the Government in which she served. We look forward to the report of the Pensions Commission next year. I referred to it in my statement. Baroness Casey will also report on how and when the national care system will be rolled out. In the midst of her attacks against a system that her own party created, the right hon. Lady did ask about welfare reform. We have already cut the gap between the health and standard elements of universal credit, and we have made changes to the Motability scheme. We have stopped people buying British pensions on the cheap, and we will make more changes following the reports of the Milburn and Timms reviews. The truth is that what we have here is a stark contrast between a party that is prepared to take the decisions needed to offer a new settlement for older people and their families, and one that is in the frankly pathetic position of resisting that change in public while, one after another, agreeing with it in private.
Well, the Secretary of State definitely had his porridge this morning! I remind Members that we reference colleagues not by their names but by their constituencies—although I appreciate that the Secretary of State was quoting.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)Labour
I particularly welcome the element of the Secretary of State’s statement about improvements to social care, which some of us have been campaigning for in this House for more years than we care to remember. Could he confirm that this is intended to make sure that individuals do not have to pay for their own care directly and that the burden will be lifted from council tax payers, many of whom now have to pay for social care for those who cannot afford to pay directly themselves? That is really important. We should make sure that council tax goes to other services and not massively towards social care.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is designed to cover the kind of personal care that people are having to pay for out of the current system. It is also, as he suggested, a national system and less reliant on the various local differences that we see throughout the current care system.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)Liberal Democrat
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history around the old age pension. In fact, it was Asquith and Lloyd George who introduced it in 1908. Then in came Margaret Thatcher in 1980 and broke the link with earnings, and that sadly remained for 30 years. Sadly, the Brown and Blair Governments did not ride to the rescue during that period of time with regard to the link with earnings. It took the Liberal Democrats introducing the triple lock when they returned to government in 2010 to start tackling pensioner poverty and drawing it to a conclusion. The triple lock has been a powerful tool for tackling pensioner poverty. It has almost drawn together the gap between males and females in respect of the state pension. It has helped some of the most vulnerable people receiving pensions. Looking to the future, it ensures that there is a solid foundation that people can build on when considering their future pension savings. That does not detract from the fact that there continues to be a cost of living crisis and that there are many people who are not saving enough towards their pensions. There is an assumption within the system for lots of our society that people should be saving towards their pensions. We have some serious questions to put to the Secretary of State. We would welcome the Secretary of State sharing any impact assessment on pensioner poverty that the Government have undertaken. In respect of social care, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified that the savings from within these proposals do not cover the finances that the Government have suggested. Is the IFS lying?
Order. For future reference, Mr Darling, you were over time by 30 seconds.
Let me begin with a cross-party point of agreement: when the hon. Member draws attention to the Liberal legacy in establishing a state pension system, he is right. He is also right that the break with earnings for many years hurt pensioner incomes. That damage has been put right through many years of state pension rises. When we get to April 2030—when the new system kicks in—those gains will be locked in under this adjusted triple lock for future years. I began my response by reaching out to the hon. Member. I am afraid that I must also point out that the Liberal Democrats did support faster than expected rises in the state pension age during their time in power. He asked about pensioner poverty, which is set to fall under our plans, the details of which were published on 29 September. He also asked about the pace and scale of rolling out the national care service. That is a matter for Baroness Louise Casey to report on, and she will issue her final report next summer.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)Labour
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the action that the Labour Government are taking, with a plan that will protect pensioners and ensure they have access to good quality care when they need it, unlike the Conservatives who did nothing to fix the broken social care system and created a hostile social security system. Does he agree that pensioners deserve clarity from the Conservatives, given that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called the pensions triple lock a “Ponzi scheme” and “not sustainable”?
My hon. Friend is quite right that we deserve clarity. If the Conservatives are going to set their face against the changes we have announced when so many of their Front Benchers past and present have supported change, why should they be believed for one instant on all the welfare savings they talk about elsewhere? If they cannot be believed on those things, I will tell the House what that leaves them with: a bunch of unfunded tax pledges. We are keeping score. They have not identified the funds to pay for them, and they are racking up promises, which they have not said how they will pay for.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)Conservative
I think many of us agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the need to tackle social care. The plans that have come forward are interesting, but there is a real concern about the £18 billion bill. The Secretary of State has identified £4 billion to go towards it—where is the other £14 billion coming from?
As I said to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the pace and scale of the rolling out of the national care service will be set out next year by Baroness Louise Casey. I remind the right hon. Member that I pointed out in my statement that the changes we have announced today will actually result in savings of £50 billion a year by 2050.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)Labour (Co-op)
One question that pensioners in Feltham and Heston ask is whether their pensions will continue to rise every year with the adjusted triple lock. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, I know that Mr Speaker reminded colleagues this morning that when they are speaking, they must do so through the Chair—they must not turn their back on the Chair.
Let me say to the pensioners in Feltham and Heston, and in every other constituency, that the state pension will continue to rise every year. It will rise by prices or by 2.5%, and the gains that it will show in relation to average earnings will be locked in from April 2030 onwards.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)Conservative
When the triple lock was introduced by the coalition Government, many of us were surprised that the British basic state pension was bumping along the bottom of the European average. The aim was that it would improve over time, so that it would be at the top—as befits a country like the UK. Is it the Secretary of State’s judgment that by April 2030 we will have reached that point or not?
It is important to appreciate that in the UK we have a dual system of a state pension and additional second pensions. We have a very healthy second pension system—trillions of pounds of investment—and it is important to look at pensioner incomes taking both those things into account. By that measure, we have a healthy pension system. Under the plans that we have announced today, the state pension will continue to rise each and every year.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)Labour
The British public deserve politicians who will be honest with them about what is necessary in order to rewrite the social contract to make it work. Does the Secretary of State therefore share my genuine disappointment that the Conservatives chose to come here today and play politics rather than get behind our plan when so many of them say in private that they know it is in the interests of the British people?
My hon. Friend is right. She knows that many MPs on the Conservative Benches agree with our position. However, their Front-Bench colleagues have chosen to adopt a different position, which is to talk about reducing the Department’s budget and then, when we make a decision to make it sustainable for the future, to run for the hills. That is what they have done today—everyone will have seen it—and it undermines everything else they say about savings in the DWP budget.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)Scottish National Party
Based on the Government’s own figures, pensioners in Scotland will be £4 billion worse off by 2050. [Interruption.] Those are the Government’s own figures. That is £2,000 for every pensioner in Scotland in the context of what has already been referred to as one of the worst state pensions in Europe. We already have free personal care in Scotland, and suspicions abound that Scottish pensioners are now being asked to fix a failed English social care system. Will the Secretary of State give me a cast-iron assurance that for every pound spent on fixing that English social care failure, there will be a Barnett consequential for Scotland so that we can restore that money to Scottish pensioners?
Let me say first that Scottish pensioners will see a rising state pension every year. The IFS has said that the First Minister was wrong to claim that was not the case. I turn to the hon. Member’s complacency. It is hugely complacent to suggest that somehow the social care system in Scotland is not in need of improvement. Let me remind him that almost 10,000 Scots are waiting for social care assessments or packages. It is Scotland’s place in the UK that means that the Scottish Government secured a record financial settlement—what have they done with the money? It is Scotland’s place in the UK that means there will be extra funding for social care in Scotland as a result of the changes we have announced.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)Labour
I know the Secretary of State shares my pride that it was a Labour-led Government in Scotland who introduced free personal care for elderly people in 2002. Since then, our ambition has grown in Scotland, and we have campaigned for 10 years to introduce a social care system—something that the SNP promised, spent £28 million trying to establish and then dropped. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the money spent on social care in England will be replicated by Barnett consequentials that will be available to the Scottish Government to spend on social care, or anything else they wish to spend it on?
My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House that it was Labour in Scotland who introduced free personal care. I notice that she did not make the claim that somehow the Scottish system is perfect and not in need of improvement; it certainly can be improved. Barnett consequentials—in plain English, a suitable share of the extra money spent in England—will be there to be spent on social care. The Scottish Government could decide to do something different, but that money will certainly be there to be spent on social care. Perhaps it needs to be when almost 10,000 Scots are waiting for social care assessments or care packages.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)Green Party
I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to tackling the crisis in social care. It does pensioners no favours if we kick the can down the road and continually fail to address it. This requires a cross-party approach and an honest and comprehensive conversation, including about the triple lock and other potential sources of funding. However, that conversation must be comprehensive. As the Secretary of State has pointed out today, this will not kick in until 2030, and yet the social care crisis is urgent. We need money now to fix it and much more money than will be released through the changes. Does the Secretary of State agree that funding to fix the crisis in social care also requires taxing wealth fairly?
It is right that we do not wait until April 2030 before trying to improve the system. Extra money is going into the social care system as a result of decisions made by this Government. We also need to do more to support the social care workforce through the fair pay agreement that this Government have promised. We will certainly not wait until April 2030 before improving the system. This announcement gives a long-term plan, which makes it different from many of the previous reviews and reports that have been issued. It identifies a sustainable and growing source of funding to pay for the national care service that the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)Labour
The Secretary of State says that a range of options has been put forward, but what about taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires? Funding social care should come from taxing them instead of reducing pensioner security. There are 2 million pensioners in the UK living in poverty, and that is even with the triple lock. Why will the Government not tax the wealthiest to pay for social care instead?
Since we came into office, we have changed the system of non-doms and the taxation regime for the wealthiest in society. More broadly, tax is a matter for the Chancellor and he has to weigh all these things up. The way that we are doing this is fair. It is a new settlement for pensioners that ensures a rising basic state pension, but also tackles the long-running issue of social care. It is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for their families, who often are worried about what will happen to their elderly relatives as they approach their final years.
I call Llinos Medi.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)Plaid Cymru
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. This Government have said more than once that pensioners who rely on the state pension as their only source of income will not have to pay tax on it during this Parliament. However, the proposed reforms to the triple lock would take effect in the next Parliament. Will the Secretary of State confirm that pensioners reliant on the state pension alone will not have to pay tax when the reforms come into place?
Many pensioners pay tax at the moment. For those who are purely reliant on the basic state pension for their income, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have made clear that they will not have to pay income tax for the duration of this Parliament. The Chancellor will announce further details at the Budget.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)Labour
In Ealing Southall, there is a wonderful culture of extended families living together and looking after elderly relatives at home. Family members—mainly women—do that often without Government support and at a cost to their own opportunities in life. Does the Secretary of State agree that the national care service, funded by today’s adjustment to the triple lock, will make a real difference for families and unpaid carers, all while ensuring the state pension continues to rise every year for pensioners in Ealing Southall?
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the immense contribution made by carers at home. The package that we have announced is good news for carers, as I said. This is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for the many younger relatives who look after older relatives and who can look forward to a new national care service being developed in the coming years.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)Independent
More than a quarter of pensioners in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr already claim pension credit on top of their state pension, but even with the triple lock they will choose between heating and eating this winter. Now they are being told that their social safety net may be cut even more. Pensioners are worried. The triple lock cannot be lifted until we put an end to the cost of living crisis and provide more support for the most vulnerable pensioners. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that, so we can ensure that the poorest pensioners are not left worse off?
I refer to our introduction of pension credit, which has done significant amounts to reduce pensioner poverty. Claims have increased by more than 30,000 in recent times. Under the plans that I have set out, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to ensure that we bear down on pensioner poverty in future, because security in retirement is vital for older people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)Labour (Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s ambition to have free personal care and to keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. However, the Secretary of State will know that I have deep concern about the levels of pensioner poverty, with 1.7 million pensioners making difficult choices and 880,000 pensioners not claiming the pension credit that they could. Will the Secretary of State raise his ambition to end pensioner poverty in this Parliament and ensure that we find mechanisms to give sufficiency to those pensioners not claiming their pension credit? Will he also publish an impact assessment so we can have a real understanding of the consequences of the proposals?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. We published a document on 29 September showing that pensioner poverty was set to fall under the plans. We are not complacent about that. That is why we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to reduce pensioner poverty in future years.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)Labour
The Secretary of State has clearly been in this place for a few years longer than I have, so I am sure that, as with me, many people get in touch with him on a weekly and monthly basis about the problems they face in the care system. It is so bad for families out there and I have lost count, even in my short time in this place, of the number of people who have been in tears in my surgeries, talking about the difficulties of navigating personal care for elderly relatives. I thank the Secretary of State for his work on this matter. Unless we get the care system right, we are turning our face away from one of the great evils in this country. The triple lock is a difficult thing to unpick, but the steps that he is taking are proportionate and should lead to that essential care system. May I thank him for the work that he has done in this space?
Let me thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to point out the deficiencies and worse that exist in the current care system, and an under-discussed part of it all is the pressure it puts on the NHS. As I said in my statement, if we turn away from this and do not tackle the kind of things my hon. Friend spoke about, we will have more A&E admissions, more ambulance callouts, and more elderly people kept in hospital when they would be better off in a social care setting.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)Labour
The SNP wasted more than £28 million of taxpayers’ money on social care plans that went nowhere: no improvement to outcomes, no improvement to the terms and conditions of social care workers in Scotland. Now, the SNP is trying to hoodwink my constituents by telling them that these plans would make them worse off. The plans would increase Barnett consequentials for Scotland, which could be spent on a national care service. Will the Secretary of State learn from the SNP’s failures and reassure my constituents?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the social care workforce. That is why we are not waiting until April 2030 to make improvements for the social care workforce. She is also right to say that as a result of the changes that I have spoken about in my statement, extra funding will be available to the Scottish Government, in addition to the record financial settlement they have already received since the general election. Were we in a different environment, we could have a constructive discussion with the Scottish Government about how to build the best social care system throughout the UK. Instead, we have the usual claims of perfection, which my hon. Friend knows are not the experience of her constituents.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)Labour
The Conservatives show remarkable flexibility when it comes to the triple lock, but absolute commitment to the reckless management of public finances and uncosted pledges. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm the following points to pensioners in Glasgow East and Scotland: that the triple lock will remain in place until 2030; that, following 2030, the pension will always keep track with prices; and further, that it will rise more than that, if needed, to keep its relative value for earnings? Will he confirm that Scottish pensioners are protected under our proposals, that no pensioner will lose money as a result of our proposals and that the Labour party always has Scottish pensioners’ backs?
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the state pension will continue to rise in each and every year. He is also right to point out that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), having confirmed that the Conservatives oppose these changes, is now left with the question of where they would find the money to continue paying the triple lock, should they ever come into power after the next election, and where they would find the money to fund social care improvements. Her failure to respond to those questions completely undermines their waving around more and more savings to fund their growing list of unfunded tax promises. We have seen that movie before, and we know how it ends because the British people are still paying the price.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)Labour
Fears for their finances and care in old age keep many people up at night. This is the biggest issue of our generation and we must tread carefully. Shamefully, the First Minister of Scotland is exploiting people’s fears by wrongly claiming that Scots will lose their pension, and he doubles down even when corrected by independent voices such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Does the Secretary of State share my outrage at this blatant politicisation of the most serious issue facing communities? Will he confirm that the state pension will continue to rise for Scottish pensioners and that the Scottish Government will get extra cash for any care spending in England?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The state pension will continue to rise for Scottish pensioners in each and every year. Furthermore, extra funds will be allocated to the Scottish Government as a result of the social care changes that are part of this package. He is also right to point out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the First Minister was wrong to claim what he claimed over the state pension. There is another thing on top of that, which is the enormous complacency in suggesting that the Scottish care system cannot be improved. It can be improved. There are almost 10,000 Scots waiting for social care assessments, and my hon. Friend knows that that is true for his constituents and the many other constituents who are represented here today.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)Labour
We should be clear that setting future indexation to a proportion of average earnings means that, over time, the state pension will be lower than under the current system. Given that future generations will increasingly rely on the state pension, it seems like we are going in the wrong direction, but the real concern is that this policy is asking pensioners to pay for the care of other pensioners. Can I ask the Secretary of State why we are not sharing the cost of a new national care service among us all?
On the relationship to average earnings, in future years the gains from almost 20 years of the triple lock by the time we get to April 2030 will be locked in. The difference will be that, instead of outpacing average earnings as the current system does, the state pension will be linked to the level of average earnings that it reaches in April 2030. On my hon. Friend’s second point, this is a new settlement which guarantees a rising state pension every year but, over time, also releases funds for one of the biggest issues facing the country. I think the Prime Minister deserves credit for facing up to this issue. His criticism of politics, which is merited, is that difficult long-term issues have too often been ducked, which has left them to fester unresolved. In putting forward this new settlement, he is ensuring not only security for pensioners’ incomes but a means of tackling this issue.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)Labour
As one of the people on the Labour Benches to call six months ago for a look at an adjustment of the triple lock, I can confirm that many of the people who approached me after I wrote about that were from the Opposition, saying that they wished their own party had had the courage to say the same thing. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today, and for the bravery to tackle those tough problems that he rightly speaks about. When he talks about a new settlement for older people on how to future fund and reduce pensioner poverty at the same time, which is absolutely to be welcomed, will he also update us on the suggestion for a new settlement for younger people to ensure that they have the opportunities they deserve, so that they can benefit from the current system and indeed pay into it as well?
My hon. Friend probably heard from a great many Tories who agree that change is needed. Perhaps he even heard from the Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have both called for change in the system, to add to the tally on the file beside my porridge. This is a new settlement for pensioners, as I have said. It still ensures a rising state pension every year, but it enables us also to face up to the long-term issue of social care.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)Labour
I thank the Secretary of State very much for confirming that the state pension will continue to rise and match earnings into the future. That is very important for reassuring pensioners in my Dartford constituency. Does he agree that pensioners across the whole country, including some of us who are soon to be pensioners, will be better off with a new national care service? I very much hope that it will not only provide free personal care but cap lifetime costs and improve the pay and conditions of those who work so hard in the care system, and that as a result, we will all be better off and adults can live a dignified life into the future.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the social care workforce. It has been undervalued over the years. The jobs that these people do are incredibly important to the people they look after, and we are not waiting until April 2030 before addressing some of those concerns and putting forward a better deal for the social care workforce.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)Labour
Rural pensioners are often more reliant on the state pension and experience higher heating and travel costs and poorer service access. Many often experience strict criteria or less outreach for council support. How do we ensure that changes to the triple lock do not leave my rural constituents behind, and that rural communities are not the last to benefit from the vitally needed national care service, especially considering the recruitment challenges we have in areas such as Cumbria?
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of rural pensioners. The changes that this Government have made will result in energy bills £150 lower than they otherwise would have been. We have also put forward special help to local authorities in areas where large amounts of people are reliant on home heating oil. We have said that we will remove VAT from electricity bills, and we will continue to do what we can to help households with the rises in energy bills, which are caused by external geopolitical events.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)Labour
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on having the courage to grasp this issue. I was saddened, but not surprised, by the response from the Opposition Front Bench. However, there may be cause for hope, because the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not in his place, has been a consistent advocate of reform of the triple lock, proving the maxim that wisdom comes with age. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under our adjusted triple lock, pensioner poverty will continue to fall in the 2030s and beyond?
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that wisdom comes with age. It is not a view I used to hold, but I am warming to it as the years go past—[Hon. Members: “Mr Ponzi scheme is here!”] I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who of course referred to the triple lock as a Ponzi system.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)Labour
We all need to do politics differently—to work with other parties constructively rather than feeding into a narrative of grievance. The people of Scotland deserve honesty from their politicians, not deceit and scaremongering. Does the Minister agree that the pensions of my West Dunbartonshire constituents will continue to rise year on year, as they will across the UK, and that the Prime Minister’s reforms will result in billions of pounds flowing to Scotland over the decades, which can help to fund Scotland’s creaking social care system?
I can certainly assure the pensioners of West Dunbartonshire that the state pension will continue to rise in each and every year. That is true for his constituents and true throughout Scotland. I can also assure his constituents that funds released from this package will flow to the Scottish Government to spend on social care, if they so wish, because we believe that the social care system throughout the UK is in need of improvement. Through this new settlement, that can happen.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)Labour
The need for a functioning care system has been clear for decades. The Dilnot report was published in 2011. The Care Act 2014 said that we would get such a system by 2016. That plan was then postponed till 2020, before being quietly scrapped entirely. Then, Boris Johnson rode to the rescue: he said that we would get it by 2021, then postponed it to 2023, and then said, “We’ll do it in 2025,” but had no funding. What has that led to? It has led to more people in hospitals who do not need to be there. It has led to care workers earning only 39p an hour more than the minimum wage. Care work is skilled work; it should be treated that way. Will the Minister promise that we will not hide behind the triple lock, that we will not fumble the ball like the Conservative party did, and that, when Baroness Casey releases her report, we will actually implement it and make a change?
My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been many reports and reviews over the years. There are differences this time. The first is that, in making the changes and putting forward this new settlement, we have identified a source of funding that will grow over the years and will help to fund the social care system. The second is political will. The Prime Minister has put this issue front and centre of his ambitions as Prime Minister, and front and centre of his speech to party conference a couple of weeks ago. He is putting his shoulder behind getting it resolved once and for all.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)Labour
The fundamental problems with social care that the Prime Minister outlined so powerfully in his conference speech are exactly the same fundamental problems with social care that my constituents in Glasgow experience, and indeed that my own family experienced when my grandparents had dementia. Does the Minister agree that, rather than playing politics, the Scottish and Welsh Governments should work with the Prime Minister to help to design a national care service that works for every corner of Britain?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, it would be a better future if the Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments could work together on this common challenge. That is the approach that should be taken forward, and that is the spirit in which the Prime Minister made the announcement in his speech at party conference. It is a new settlement, and we should be taking it forward together.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5415310.