Yesterday the Lords put forward a very reasonable set of measures in regard to proposals for the Pension increase, which protected the Pension Triple Lock. The Triple Lock being designed and agreed by all parties to protect the link between earnings and pensions. Bringing forward the amendment, Baroness Altmann to maintain this link, made it clear that she was not proposing a specific uprating figure by proposing this amendment. That is important. It seems to me since all Conservative MPs could have voted for this amendment, to honour their own manifesto commitment, and still address the problem of how the pandemic has distorted the earnings data. The question if they are not prepared to do this is should they admit what is really going on: Are they using the pandemic as a smokescreen to scrap the triple lock and pocket the savings?
In the previous debate about this issue the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said that a figure of 3.1% “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.]
Yet now when this was discussed again we find ourselves with the goalposts having 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”. (7.5%) In reality, the Bank of England’s chief economist is forecasting 5%. To be blunt, the facts have changed- worsened and despite agreeing previously that 3.1% was necessary they are now reneging on even that position. 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
The Government should have changed their position to at least to reflect the fiscal outlook, if not to respect their manifesto commitment.
Realising what a hot potato this issue was and not wanting to take responsibility to vote on an issue which will further detrimentally impact on the elderly in our communities and their constituencies, several prominent MPs chose not to vote on this issue or in fact attend or speak on the debate on the 15th of November; including Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
Not so however, for one Back Bencher from North Norfolk. Duncan Baker MP who read the room wrongly once again. He stood proudly to claim he represented the elderly in North Norfolk. Thankfully according to our local MP, after his expert explanation in financial prudence they understood perfectly why it was of great benefit for them and logical for the government to not keep the triple lock this year, and as a result accept a cut in their pension
Once again, as in his tawdry explanation of why sewage dumping targets were inappropriate as a result of the extraordinary cost of 600 billion involved, huge amounts of 8 and 9 billion have been chucked into the badinage. Yet Baroness Altman had made it clear that no set figure was to be included and certainly not 8.3% as would be necessary to create such astronomical additional budgetary costs as declared by Duncan Baker. As John McDonnell said “Under the Lords amendment we are talking about giving pensioners an extra £2.75 a week – it is ridiculous that we are arguing against this.” According to figures on pensioner poverty from Age UK, there are 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty in our country at the moment, up from 1.6 million in 2014—a 30% increase. The majority of pensioners living in poverty are women. Facts our local MP seems oblivious of.
The DWP estimates for the Lords Amendment are that it would cost £1.3 billion in ’22-23; that was in comparison with the uprating with prices. This means £1.3 billion for pensioners. Interestingly a £25 billion corporate tax break was given away by the Chancellor in the Budget. It will be £12.5 billion next year.
Duncan Baker cannot possibly be considered here to be representing the over 40% of North Norfolk – pensioners, many of whom may be wealthier retirees and voted for him but many of whom will be living in poverty. So what is this bloviate stand about by Duncan Baker? Self promotion within the Tory ranks?
Probably.
However, when you hear his plea in the debate to the Government, flagrant electioneering bounces to the fore. Obviously the triple lock can just be ignored this year but “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.” No attempt at obfuscation here.
One can only assume therefore, Duncan Baker assumes the electorate of North Norfolk are not capable of seeing though this charade of apparent integrity and concern for his electorate, along with his role as puppet to the whip in recent votes necessitating apologies and U-turns by the government.
I have more respect for North Norfolk’s voters and cannot see this being well rewarded at the ballot box at the next election.
See more from the debate here in Hansard
https://davidhencke.com/?fbclid=IwAR3ekTBP3J9AXekBstoK_CMbHn496GoAVsperkHsxyggD5XVah9g1nBSqMY