Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

I rise to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and commit the SNP to voting for it when the House divides this evening. As well as speaking to that amendment, I wish to comment on the broader principles of the Bill. I am conscious that those watching our proceedings will perhaps be unaware of the consequences of the passing of this legislation, and especially of rushing it all through in the space of a couple of hours.

In short, as we all know, the Bill facilitates this Tory Government’s breaking yet another manifesto commitment —namely, by breaking the pensions triple lock, to which all parties in the House committed themselves at the election less than two years ago. The breaking of that manifesto pledge follows on from the Government’s scrapping the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on the world’s poorest through our international aid budget, and now comes on top of the new Tory poll tax, which sees hard-working Scots having to endure a hike in national insurance to pay for the sorting out of the utter mess of England’s health and social care system. The Prime Minister is not known for keeping his promises, and the decision to suspend the triple lock will have dire consequences for pensioners.

As constituency MPs, we all know that the state pension is by far the largest source of income for UK pensioners, and the triple lock has kept it secure throughout the pandemic. To be blunt, the British Government’s decision to break its triple-lock promise is a betrayal and an unacceptable attack on pensioners’ incomes. What is more, this change will do nothing to stop recent indications that more pensioners are living in poverty. The proportion of pensioners on relative low income—that is, the percentage of pensioners in the UK living in households with net disposable income below 60% of the national median, after housing costs—rose from a historic low of 13% in 2011-12 to 18% in 2019-20.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise in his analysis that we took notice of pensioners’ needs last year? The triple lock is reliant on earnings being positive, and last year they were negative, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the opportunity to raise pensions, despite the fact that the terms of the triple lock were not met at that time.

[David Linden]

If the hon. Lady pays attention to the rest of my speech, she will understand that I am developing my argument because the UK state pension is so pitiful. That is the point I am addressing and I am sure she will make it in her speech, too.

The rise in the proportion of pensioners on relative low income followed a period of more than a decade during which the measure had been trending downwards from a high of 29% in 1998-99. The passing of the Bill will undo all that work.

Although the state pension is the biggest source of income for pensioners, House of Commons Library analysis shows that UK state pensions are the lowest as a proportion of pre-retirement wages of all our European neighbours. Pensioners throughout these islands receive around just a quarter of the average wage when they retire, whereas pensioners in Luxembourg and Austria receive 90% of the average working wage. According to the OECD’s latest analysis, the UK has an overall net replacement rate of 28.4% from mandatory pensions for an average earner. That is well below the OECD average of 58.6% and the EU average of 63.5%. It is simply not right that the UK devotes a smaller percentage of its GDP to state pensions and pensioner benefits than most other advanced economies.

The triple lock betrayal is yet another Tory-imposed austerity cut. The Commons Library briefing for this debate estimates that the British Government will take away £5 billion from pensioners in 2022-23 if the triple-lock elements of the state pension are uprated by 2.5% rather than 8.3%. Investment in the state pension is crucial, especially as many are still excluded from automatic enrolment in workplace pensions—although I acknowledge that some, but nowhere near enough, progress has been made on auto-enrolment.

Let me briefly develop that point a little further. The British Government’s failure to extend automatic enrolment to low-income earners and young people disproportionately impacts women, thereby worsening the already massive gender pension gap on these islands. That is before we even come to the issue of the Department for Work and Pensions’ maladministration with regard to 1950s-born women who, quite rightly, await to see what stage 2 of the ombudsman’s process will conclude. I very much hope it will do so soon.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I echo what my hon. Friend is saying about 1950s-born women. Is the decision to abandon the triple lock not a double injustice to those women—and to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign—because not only are they now being denied the rise in their pension that they might have expected, but they were denied a pension at all at the time they originally expected their pension?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is right. I am sure that, like me, he receives regular representations on that matter from Rosie Dickson from WASPI Scotland. I am glad that he has put that on the record on Rosie’s behalf.

Before I move on, let me touch on frozen pensions, to which the Father of the House made reference when we were considering the business of the House motion. Members will be aware that the UK has a series of historical reciprocal arrangements to provide for the uprating of state pensions in certain countries. Most recently, the Government committed in the Brexit trade deal to uprating the state pensions of UK pensioners in the European economic area. UK pensioners in other countries such as the USA, Philippines, Israel and Jamaica continue to receive their full payments. However, the arbitrary system means that pensioners in other countries—and, indeed, even in British overseas territories such as the Falkland Islands—have their pensions frozen, despite their having paid in the same dues. More than 90% of affected pensioners live in Commonwealth countries with close cultural ties to the UK. The UK is the only country in the OECD to take this two-tier approach to state pensions; I ask the Minister to reflect on that.

There is opposition to the Bill from various parts of the House, but that opposition does not stop in this Chamber. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady has said:

“The UK has one of the least generous state pensions in the developed world. The triple lock was introduced to close this gap and lift pensioners out of poverty. Suspending it will only halt our progress. This is a dangerous precedent. If the government is allowed to pick and choose when to apply the triple lock, the result will be lower state pensions for future generations and more pensioners experiencing hardship. This decision will hit old and young alike. A race to the bottom on pensions helps no one.”

She is absolutely right.

Let me finish with a quote from even closer to home: something I found on the Better Together website, which advocated Scotland voting against independence in 2014. The Better Together campaign said:

“Our pensions are safer as part of the UK…We are living longer and working longer than ever before. People want to know that their pensions are safe. The UK State Pension means that everyone in the UK can get the same basic State Pension. It is a great example of how we share good things across the UK.”

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

Not at the moment. The campaign went on:

“We all pay in when we are working, and we all benefit when we retire. This means we can support all our pensioners in the same way whether times are good or bad. Scotland’s people are getting older at a faster rate than the rest of the UK. This is good but it means that if we leave the UK we could have a difficult choice to make”,

including on “Cutting the state pension.” On that, I give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).

[Douglas Ross]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the state pension would be in an independent Scotland and what currency it would be paid in?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finding the time to come to the House of Commons this evening; I know he will be balancing his obligations—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

No answers.

[David Linden]

The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. I outlined earlier in my speech that we want pensions much more in line with those of, for example, Austria and Luxembourg. I hope that that answers the question.

The SNP will vote to reject this legislation, but in the passing of this Bill tonight we will see yet another Better Together myth burst: that pensioners are somehow protected by Mother Britannia. To be blunt, to allow the Bill to proceed tonight will not only violate the contract offered to voters by the Prime Minister in 2019—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Moray—which won a handsome majority in this place, but make a mockery of the no campaign’s claim that Scotland remaining in this broken Union is the best deal for UK pensioners when it is patently not.

The SNP will vote to reject this legislation, but in truth we all know that the democratic deficit throughout these islands means that Scotland’s MPs will be outvoted when we try to protect pensioners’ incomes. That is why the only way to truly tackle the plight of pensioner poverty is with Scottish independence, because Westminster is not working and we need to retire from this United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to close the Bill’s Second Reading for the Opposition. We have heard many good speeches, but, before I turn to them, I want first to deal with the central case that the Government have made for the legislation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) set out in opening for Labour, Opposition Members accept that there has been an anomaly in the earnings data due to the pandemic, and we recognise that a solution is required. I have listened carefully to passionate speeches from colleagues across the House, but I simply do not believe that anyone in the UK believes that wages are rising at 8.3% in real terms across the board. If I were to put that case to my constituents, I think they would very much question my judgment. However, as we said since the announcement was made, the duty is on the Government to explain why their preferred solution—a move to uprating by inflation or 2.5%—is the right one. That duty is particularly important because the triple lock was a Conservative manifesto commitment and, as many hon. Members pointed out, the announcement to break it has come after a series of decisions to break other Conservative manifesto commitments. It is therefore reasonable that the burden of proof lies on the Government and that the threshold for support should be high.

We have had some valuable contributions. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was right to highlight the trust in the Government stemming from the decisions of the last few months. He was also right to point out figures that show that the number of pensioners living in poverty taken by the measurement that he indicated—those living with an income below 60% of the median after their housing costs—is rising. Given that we know overall spending on pensions is going up every year by quite considerable numbers, why are we also seeing that rise in poverty? That is a question for us all and one on which we may need more time in future.

The hon. Member favours auto-enrolment, and I very much agree. The question is about how to do that in a post-pandemic environment. He will understand, however, that I cannot agree when he posits that Scottish independence might be the solution to some of those problems, because an independent Scotland would clearly face some difficult economic decisions in its own right. I do not think it is necessarily helpful to put that across.

[David Linden]

Yes, an independent Scotland would face difficult economic decisions, but does the hon. Member accept that the central point of independence is about people in Scotland—the people who live and work there—making those economic decisions?

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and on behalf of my colleagues.

New clause 1 compels the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill on poverty, inequality and, subsequently, our health. In particular, I request that a report be laid before the House within six months of the passing of the Act, and that the effects of the provisions in the Act on socioeconomic inequalities and population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 are considered.

We have heard a lot in recent months—it seems like many years—about levelling up and building back better. We even heard from the Prime Minister himself that he supports Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s call to build back fairer. To do that, however, we need the Government to be able to assess whether their policies will actually do that. We heard, in the Work and Pensions Committee, that that is difficult to do. I argue very strongly that that is not the case and I know there are many others who would argue similarly.

The House will recall that, in February 2020, Sir Michael published his review of health equity in England 10 years after his initial study. In it, he revealed that instead of narrowing, health inequalities, including how long we are going to live and how long we will live in good health, have actually got worse. Most significantly, his analysis showed that, unlike the majority of other high income countries, our life expectancy was flatlining. For the poorest 10% of the country it was declining and women were particularly badly affected. We heard earlier that 2 million pensioners live in relative poverty today; among women of state pension age it is one in five. For women of colour, the figure is even higher. Black and Asian pensioners are also twice as likely to be living in poverty as white pensioners.

Sir Michael also emphasised that it is predominantly the socioeconomic conditions that people are exposed to, not the NHS, that will determine their health status and how long they live. Analysing the abundant evidence available, he attributed the shorter lives of people in poorer areas, including in parts of my constituency in Oldham and in the north-west as a whole, to the disproportional Government cuts to local public services, including cuts in social security support that they have experienced since 2010.

And then the pandemic hit. As a former public health consultant, I can say this with absolute certainty: it was always a question of when, not if there was going to be a pandemic. The lack of pandemic preparedness, going back to the Cygnus report and before, as well as the woeful pandemic management, laid bare the pre-pandemic structural inequalities that are rife across the country.

Many believe that the structural inequalities driven by the Government cuts that I have referred to, including social security cuts, will be found responsible for the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll, with the fifth worst covid mortality rate in the world and the worst in the EU. In an early analysis of the reasons for that, Sir Michael’s Covid review last December summarised four key pre-pandemic factors.

The first was pre-existing and widening inequalities in social and economic conditions, particularly in power, money and resources; Sir Michael stated that those inequalities in life had led to inequalities in health. The second was our governance and political culture, not just before the pandemic but during it, which he described as divisive, damaging social cohesion and de-emphasising the importance of the common good. The third was Government austerity over the last 10-plus years; he referred particularly to cuts to social security and local authority budgets, including in adult and children’s social care, public health and education. The final factor was our pre-existing poor and declining health.

Sir Michael makes a number of recommendations to build back fairer, including increasing the adequacy of social security spending. Our focus in this debate has been on state pensions, but the cuts of £36 billion to working-age social security support over the past 11 years and the impact that they will have on increasing poverty rates—including as a result of the universal credit cut that we are expecting—must not be underestimated.

Improving our health and wellbeing must be a priority for this Government and an outcome of all our policies, including our economic and public spending and social security. My new clause is about ensuring that the Secretary of State recognises that and publishes a review of the impact of social security spending on poverty, inequality and, ultimately, our health. Given that the Prime Minister and Health Secretary have already stated that they support Sir Michael’s recommendations and that this is a means to implement levelling up, I hope that the Secretary of State will adopt my new clause in the Bill.

[David Linden]

I do not seek to detain the Committee for long, not least because I spoke on Second Reading and because there are only two amendments before us.

In speaking to my new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I also offer support to new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). In truth, the two new clauses, although worded differently, seek to do much the same thing: hold the Tory Government’s feet to the fire, not simply allow them to stick their head in the sand when it comes to pensioner poverty.

I bitterly regret that the Bill got a Second Reading, particularly with the help of Scottish Tory MPs, but as the Bill will soon be an Act, it is now incumbent on us to ensure that at least Ministers fully understand the sheer impact of such bad legislation on our constituents and the consequences of this Government’s ditching yet another manifesto pledge to pensioners about the triple lock.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment with the Minister, who talked earlier about how the Scottish Government should top up the income that pensioners would be deprived of? The Minister knows full well—if he does not, it is worrying— that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 forbids the Scottish Government from topping up pensioners’ benefits except

“by reason of old age.”

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.

Does my hon. Friend also share my view that rather than expecting the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to continually clean up the injustices of this Government, we would be far better off having all the powers to prevent injustices in the first place?

[David Linden]

I would caution the Minister that my hon. Friend, a former teacher, is not someone whose office or classroom he would want to be summoned to for a telling off. She has quite eloquently set him right on what I am sure was inadvertent misleading of the Committee.

I will return to new clause 2, because I would not want to stray too far from matters before the Committee. My new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House an assessment of the impact on levels of poverty of the uprating of state pensions next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth.

During the Brexit referendum, we were repeatedly told that Parliament would be taking back control. My new clause would merely require Ministers to be transparent and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of poverty, which I am sure any responsible Government would undertake. If indeed Parliament is taking back control, I am sure that agreeing to the new clause will be no problem at all for the Minister; I therefore hope that he will not oppose it. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

[Guy Opperman]

The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is that this is a one-year-only Bill and that the triple lock will resume after its duration. In respect of the requirement for a report, he and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) should be aware that the Department already collects and publishes a wide range of data in this policy area, which is published annually in the HBAI—households below average income —series of reports. In fact, I have a copy here, which is available on gov.uk; the most recent report is dated 25 March 2021. I can assure the Committee that the Government will continue to publish actual data on public health and poverty as it becomes available, but no specific data would be available by May 2022, as is sought.

I will not go into what the powers are under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, but I can assure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) that I disagree with her view. I maintain that the powers are there under the Act.

In the circumstances, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Review

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of this Act on levels of poverty among pensioners in—

(a) Scotland,

(b) Wales, and

(c) England.”—(David Linden.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the uprating next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth on levels of pensioner poverty in Scotland, Wales and England (the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland).

Brought up, and read the First time.

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I know that the hon. Members who suspended proxy voting and brought back in-person voting will be very keen to vote tonight, so I would like to divide the Committee on the new clause, which stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friends.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I have already outlined my view of the Bill on Second Reading. I am disappointed that the Government chose to reject our new clause 2 in Committee, but in the interests of brevity I will not go over old ground, not least because I am conscious that we have more legislation to consider this evening.

As is customary, I want to thank all hon. and right hon. Members for the good-natured if robust debate that we have had during proceedings on the Bill. I also want to thank and pay tribute to the ever helpful Clerk of Legislation for their support and advice to me and our lead researcher on the Bill, Zoe Carre, who will be leaving Westminster for pastures new next month. I hope you will indulge me for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that Zoe has been a pleasure to work with on the inclusion and wellbeing team and will be sorely missed by all of us in the SNP group in this place.

By passing this Bill unamended tonight, the House will be agreeing with the very legislation that allows the Government to break their promise to our constituents that there would be a triple lock on pensions. The SNP will continue to stand firm against this Tory Government’s attack on the pensions triple lock, because we believe that an adequate state pension is essential to ensuring dignity and fairness in retirement. It is clear that the British Government will continue to ride roughshod over our pensioners and that the only way to protect Scotland’s pensioners from more Tory austerity is with the full powers of independence. I look forward to making that case during the upcoming referendum, which we all know is on the horizon. I just wonder whether those in the no campaign will be as misleading this time when it comes to pensions, because if they are, they will need plenty of polish for their brass necks.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

As the MP for North Norfolk, which has some of the highest numbers of older people in the country, you can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I want to speak briefly in this debate. First, we have come back to basics. I was a finance director and a chartered accountant before I came into this place, so I have a reasonable grasp of statistics, and it is fair to say that this Government have, to the tune of around £400 billion, safeguarded the country through a pandemic that no one ever expected. Not only that, but the national debt sits at some £2.2 trillion, so it is understandable that we are sitting here this evening being extremely careful and prudent about what we do with our public finances.

The electorate, as we have seen many times before, will forgive a Government many things, but they will not forgive a Government being reckless with the public finances. We have to understand that, much as we would like to increase pensioners’ pay, every 1% increase costs the Exchequer a billion pounds. To put that in perspective, with an increase of some 8% to 9%, we are looking at an increase of some £8 billion to £9 billion. I can therefore see entirely how that would sit when we have to look in the eye of a prison officer, a police officer, a teacher, a firefighter or any other public sector worker who has seen their pay frozen for the past year. That is the real context. It is about fairness and a statistical anomaly caused by the dip, coming off furlough on to 100% pay and when the ONS statistics were taken. It has given rise to this one-off statistical anomaly.

What the House of Lords has proposed is sensible, and I took that to the Secretary of State to ask whether we could do something to still honour the framework of the triple lock, while ensuring that we have a sensible parameter to measure it by. The answer that came back was exactly the same as the one the excellent Minister just gave: we need a robust metric. We cannot just move the goalposts and cherry-pick a point in time because the argument does not fit at the moment. Many of my constituents have written to me about this issue, and when a detailed reply has gone back to them, a great number understand why we have this one-off double lock.

In summing up, I say two things to the Minister. First, woe betide us if we do not honour the triple lock next year. We have some of the best public finances recovery in the G7, as the Chancellor said the other week, so we must get back to giving our pensioners the pay increases they absolutely deserve, because they have paid in all their lives. Secondly, it would be wonderful to go into the next election with the resounding message that our pensions are good, honest pensions that people have earned all their lives, at a level that people can be proud of compared with Europe. Too often, our pensioners feel that is not necessarily the case. I would like the Minister to ensure that we put our pensioners at the front of the queue as we come out of this pandemic. I wholly understand what he has said this evening. I will be rejecting the Lords amendment, because it is sensible to maintain the public purse in the best possible way at a time like this, so that our country can rebound from where we are at the moment.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who spoke about the risks of throwing a billion pounds about here and there. I know he was not in the previous Parliament, when the Government were propped up by the Democratic Unionist party, but I recall them having no great difficulty finding a billion pounds down the back of the sofa. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was worth about £100 million, which is probably more than Messi.

Unlike the Minister, I am glad to see the Bill back in the House this evening, because the amendments passed by their lordships give the Government an opportunity to perform a U-turn with ermine grace and charm. Before it went back to the other place, the Bill as originally drafted facilitated the British Government breaking yet another manifesto commitment, namely the pensions triple lock, which I remind the House all parties in this Chamber committed to at the election fewer than two years ago. Thankfully, the Bill was amended in the other place, and I am grateful to Baroness Altmann for Lords amendments 1 and 2, which seek to restore the earnings link.

As we are relatively short on time, I will not go over some of the meatier issues that I outlined on Second Reading, including the Government’s repeated breach of their manifesto commitments, the worrying trends in pensioner poverty, pension comparisons with OECD countries and the—at best—disappointing lack of action on pre-existing equalities that are baked into our pension system. In speaking in favour of the Lords amendments, I will outline why the SNP continues to vote to respect its 2019 election manifesto commitment and why the Budget has changed things, which may result in more Opposition Members voting tonight than on Second Reading.

The Minister will have familiarised himself with the House of Lords Official Report, but in the interests of completeness and for the benefit of Hansard, I remind the House of what Baroness Altmann said on the cost of living crisis, which affects all the constituents we seek to represent in this House. She reminded the other place of the Government’s view that

“the 3.1% figure would still protect against rises in the cost of living.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1140.]

She quoted the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that that figure

“will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living”.—[Official Report, 20 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 86.]

However, the goalposts have moved, and the fiscal outlook is much bleaker. The Chancellor conceded in the Budget that inflation in September was already at 3.1% and would rise further. The Office for Budget Responsibility has gone further, predicting that consumer prices index inflation will reach 4.4% next year. It went on to say that inflation

“could hit the highest rate seen in the UK for three decades”,

which the House will know is about 7.5%. In reality, the Bank of England’s chief economist is forecasting 5%. To be blunt, the facts have changed and the Government must now change their position at least to reflect the fiscal outlook, if not to respect their manifesto commitment.

Pensioners across these islands are not immune from rising energy and food costs, and we know that inflation is biting hard for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies as we approach a harsh winter. Last month, energy bills rose by 12%, and food bills have also risen, so the Government must think again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The 12% figure is not reflected in Northern Ireland, where energy prices have risen by some 30%, and the cost of living has also risen by 20%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for that reason, we must support the Lords amendments for the pensioners?

[David Linden]

I will avoid going into energy policy in Northern Ireland, given previous actions, but the hon. Member is right to place that on the record. His constituents in Strangford should be grateful to him not just for making that point but for backing the Lords amendments when we come to the Division.

The Red Book suggests that, by scrapping the triple lock, the Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion in 2023-24 and £6.1 billion in 2024-25. The Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pensions system that they have paid into their whole lives. I caution the Minister that that is an electorally courageous move for a party that has generally enjoyed higher levels of support among pensioners. Indeed, I will be particularly interested to see how our Scottish Conservative colleagues try to sell this latest broken promise to the electorate north of Coldstream.

The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the British Government’s triple lock betrayal and urges the House to support the Lords amendments. There may be a couple of hundred extra MPs in the Division Lobby with us tonight compared with the last time the House looked at this in September, but we know that the Tory Government will use their majority to plough ahead and vote down their lordships’ amendments regardless. My constituents in Glasgow East will therefore conclude once again that the House does not work for pensioners and it certainly does not work for Scotland. The only way to do things differently is with the normal powers of independence, and I suspect that this tawdry Bill will only hasten that cause further.

[Stephen Timms]

In my intervention on the Minister, I asked if it remained the Government’s intention that the value of the state pension should, over time, at least keep track with earnings. He declined to confirm that it did, so it may be that the Government’s policy has changed. Ever since Adair Turner’s pensions report was published in 2006, Government policy has been that the state pension should keep track with earnings, not just with prices as was previously the case. I suppose we must conclude that there has been a change in approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

There is so much that I could reply to; I could genuinely take some considerable time replying to the right hon. Gentleman. Let us start with this. During the last Labour Government, in which time the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is a former Pensions Minister, another former Pensions Minister who is in the Chamber, and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were Members, did they in any way link the state pension to earnings? Not on one single occasion over 13 years. It is this Government—the coalition Government and this Conservative Government—who have linked it to earnings.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the state pension. That is paid for by the working taxpayer on an ongoing basis. The working taxpayer is paying more for the state pension, and it is a larger state pension than ever before; £129 billion is spent—[Interruption.] A hundred and twenty-nine billion. He does not want to hear it, because it is the largest state pension there has ever been. Thirteen years of a Labour Government, and what did they do? They never linked it to earnings. I remember the 75p increase in state pension by Gordon Brown. It is astonishing, the hubris that the right hon. Gentleman comes up with.

The factual reality is that there was never a situation where the Labour Government did anything like the coalition and Conservative Governments did. I asked the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who represents the Opposition, to come up with a figure. You can search Hansard for as long as you like, Madam Deputy Speaker; answer came there none. There was not a single figure. The factual reality is that the Opposition have no idea how they would approach this, they have not come up with an individual figure, and they are not able to do anything—

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will, for the last time.

[David Linden]

With a view to trying to bring the heat down just a little, let me ask the Minister this. He mentioned the commitment that the triple lock would return next year. Would he be willing to put on the record that, if the triple lock does not return next year, he will resign from ministerial office?

[Guy Opperman]

It is in the Bill that it only lasts for one year. The hon. Gentleman should really read the Bill. It is not that difficult; it only runs to two pages and two clauses.