The Pensions (Increase) Bill

Announces that the reasoned amendment in the name of Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) has been selected.

The amendment is part of a series of broken promises by the Government, including cuts to overseas aid and increases in national insurance. Labour calls for the Government to maintain an earnings link and provide binding commitments to protect low-income pensioners.

Questions whether the Labour Party would welcome certain positive changes such as permanent increases in local housing allowance, work allowances, above-inflation increase to the national living wage and changes to income tax thresholds.

Supports the idea that the Government needs to make changes to the triple lock due to economic impacts from the pandemic. However, calls for a re-examination of investment levels in universal credit.

Opposes the Bill due to its negative impact on pensioners' incomes and its breach of manifesto commitments. Emphasises that UK state pensions are among the lowest in Europe, exacerbating poverty among pensioners.

Intervened to highlight that despite not meeting triple lock criteria last year due to negative earnings growth, the Government raised pensions anyway, showing consideration for pensioners' needs.

Echoed concerns about the double injustice faced by 1950s-born women due to the abandonment of the triple lock, highlighting their long-standing campaign for justice.

Asked about state pension specifics in an independent Scotland and currency details, challenging the SNP's stance on independence as a solution to pensioner poverty.

Intervened to question Wendy Chamberlain's stance, referencing a former Pensions Minister from her party who supports the Government’s proposed changes.

Supports the bill as it ensures pensioners have reasonable expectations for state pension increases. Criticises the idea of an 8% rise due to pandemic-related earnings fluctuations, arguing it is not in line with the triple lock's intent. Emphasises the need for fiscal sustainability and transparency.

Emphasises that increasing take-up of pension credit could address pensioner poverty. Noted the significant unclaimed amount in Wales, around £214 million, suggesting it is a viable solution.

Intervened to clarify that universal credit includes tax credits and supports the idea of investment in this system to help people into work, rather than reducing it.

Defends the decision to reduce the state pension increase due to economic conditions. Argues that most people understand why the Government is making this change and supports the move towards a double lock for a year.

Ms Gibson criticises the Government for breaking their triple-lock promise to pensioners, noting that this will disproportionately affect women born in the 1950s. She supports an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to assess and be accountable for the impact of the legislation on poverty among pensioners. She highlights the low levels of pre-retirement wages compared to other European countries and points out the failure to extend automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, which disproportionately affects women. Ms Gibson also questions the lack of steps taken by the Government to increase uptake of pension credit.

Mr Whitley condemns the government's breaking of its triple-lock promise, citing it as yet another example of broken promises from the Conservatives. He highlights the impact on pensioners during the pandemic and warns that without reinstatement of the triple lock in 2023, future winters will be harder for retired people. He also calls for a commitment to publish advice given on this issue.

The UK's policy on pensions is a result of decades of deliberate decisions to underfund older people. Removing the triple lock will impact pensioners negatively, especially given rising energy costs and food prices. The Bill undermines the social contract and welfare state, affecting more than half of single pensioners who live in fuel poverty already.

While it is necessary to address the financial deficit caused by covid, raiding pensioners' incomes is unjust. Pensioners need additional funding due to rising costs; cutting their benefits will leave them worse off. The Bill will disproportionately affect Northern Ireland's pensioners, especially those in fuel poverty and Housing Executive accommodation.

Opposes the amendment, questioning the Government's evidence for an 8.3% wage growth rate due to the pandemic anomaly. Emphasises the importance of maintaining manifesto commitments and highlights increasing pensioner poverty despite overall spending on pensions rising.

Highlights figures showing rising numbers of pensioners living in poverty below 60% of the median income after housing costs. Raises concerns about trust issues stemming from recent Government decisions breaking manifesto commitments.

Argues that maintaining the value of the state pension is crucial, but questions whether holding to manifesto commitments might lose trust. Proposes a wider debate on the earnings lock.

Questions the ability to analyse underlying wage trends without pandemic impact and agrees with the challenge of finding unchallengeable data.

Points out that pensioner poverty is rising and emphasises the need to increase take-up of pension credit. Raises concern about the juxtaposition with the cut to universal credit.

Discusses past debates on pension upratings and the improvement in poverty levels under previous Labour governments, but agrees that discussion should not be framed as intergenerational conflict.

Raises concerns about lack of trust stemming from broken manifesto commitments. Emphasises the need for more engagement on the accuracy of data.

The Minister emphasised that the Bill ensures pensioners’ spending power is preserved and protects them from higher costs of living. He highlighted that pensioner poverty has decreased since 2010 due to the triple lock, which increased the full yearly basic state pension by £2,050 in cash terms. The Minister also mentioned there are now fewer pensioners in absolute poverty compared to 2009-10.

Intervened to point out that while the Minister used an absolute measure of pensioner poverty which showed a decrease, the more widely accepted relative measure indicated an increase in pensioner poverty.

Asked for clarification on whether the Scottish Government could intervene on pensions matters under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016.

Asked the Minister to give extra emphasis to Northern Ireland in addressing pensioner poverty, noting that 15% of pensioners are consistently in fuel poverty and overall poverty.