-
Proposes to disagree with Lords Amendment 1, arguing that average earnings growth is distorted by the pandemic and supports a double lock of at least inflation or 2.5% for this year.
-
Intervenes to question whether the value of state pensions should keep track with earnings over time, pressing Guy Opperman on the Government's intention regarding pension values.
-
Supports Lords Amendment 1 proposed by Baroness Altmann, arguing that it reflects Labour’s position. Emphasises the inconsistency in Government arguments regarding wage growth and argues for a more substantive debate on pensioner poverty.
-
Mr. Baker argued against the Lords amendments, citing fiscal responsibility and public sector wage pressures due to national debt and pandemic expenses. He emphasised that pension increases cost £1 billion per 1%, and highlighted a statistical anomaly affecting current pension calculations. He urged the Government to honour the triple lock next year but supported the double lock in the context of economic prudence.
-
Mr. Linden supported the Lords amendments, questioning the Government's breach of manifesto commitments and highlighting inflationary pressures on pensioners. He noted that rising costs affect pensioners' spending power and criticised the fiscal outlook presented by the Chancellor. He emphasised that scrapping the triple lock is a 'raw deal' for pensioners who have paid into the system their whole lives.
-
Mr. Shannon interjected to support the Lords amendments, citing higher energy price rises and cost of living in Northern Ireland compared to the figures mentioned by Mr. Linden.
-
Mr. Timms asked if it remains the Government's intention for state pensions to keep track with earnings over time, questioning a possible change in policy stance since Adair Turner’s report.
-
Mr. Opperman intervened to clarify that the current Bill is for one year only, and after that state pensions will increase at least in line with earnings.
-
McDonnell supports the coalition government's triple lock policy but criticises the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings by Margaret Thatcher. He argues that maintaining this link would benefit pensioners significantly, with single pensioners being £2,662 a year better off and couples being £4,277 a year better off. He highlights the increase in pensioner poverty from 1.6 million to 2.1 million and mentions fuel price increases impacting low-income pensioners negatively.
-
Chamberlain emphasises that she has not received any support for suspending the triple lock and highlights constituents' concerns about state pension being one of the lowest in Europe. She questions the alignment between the Secretary of State's and Prime Minister's explanations regarding wage increases, expressing concern over pensioners falling behind.
-
Supports Lords amendments 1 and 2, criticises the UK Government for abandoning the triple lock. Emphasises that pensioners across the UK are watching carefully and will not forgive betrayal from MPs who abstained or voted against the amendment.
-
Thanked colleagues for contributions, emphasised that this Government is spending £129 billion on pensioners. Rejected claims made by the SNP and Labour MPs, arguing that during Labour’s 13 years in power, they never linked state pensions to earnings. Asserted that the Bill only lasts for one year before reverting to current legislation.
-
Interjected that the state pension is not a charitable donation; it is something paid for by workers throughout their lives through taxes, national insurance contributions. Some have served in the armed forces.
-
Asked if the Minister would resign from ministerial office if the triple lock does not return next year, questioning the sincerity of the Government’s commitment to it.