Andy Burnham’s proposal to change the triple lock on pensions has been met with criticism, particularly from Reform MP Suella Braverman, who accused him of launching an “indefensible attack” on pensioners. The triple lock ensures that pensions rise by the rate of inflation, earnings, or 2.5%, whichever is highest.
The proposed changes, announced at the Labour conference, would scrap the automatic link to average earnings from 2030, with pensions increasing by either 2.5% or the rate of inflation. The savings would be used to fund a national care service in England.
Suella Braverman suggested that the plan could jeopardize a major source of “financial security for lower-income pensioners”. She stated, “The short answer is yes. Andy Burnham’s attack on the triple lock is really indefensible. The triple lock provides a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of pensioners around the country.”
Read Also: Meghan Markle’s UK Strategy Targets Princess Kate’s Spotlight
Braverman added that alternative sources of funding for the national care service could be explored, such as “scrapping our migrant welfare bill, foreign aid or net zero levies”. She also accused Labour of not being honest about the money needed to fund the care service, which Mr Burnham said would be covered by the £15billion annual sum raised by the pensions tweak.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that the savings from the pensions tweak would not be enough to fund universal social care. Jonathan Cribb, deputy director of the IFS, said, “Savings are likely to be relatively small in the first few years but rise substantially over time. We should not expect this reform to save enough that it could fund universal social care in the next parliament.”
Andy Burnham refused to budge on his initial estimate, suggesting that the savings “would be enough to pay for social care” but “obviously they’re not released immediately”. He denied speculation that the shortfall would be plugged with tax rises.
