Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Janke Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the two new Peers and congratulate them on their excellent maiden speeches. The reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Field, to the poorest—those on the avenue to destitution—resonates particularly at this time. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, clearly has huge experience and knowledge, not least about pensions and social security, so I am sure they will both make very important contributions to the work of the House.

I support the Bill and the Government’s commitment to retaining the triple lock. It is good to hear today just how many noble Lords support the principle of the triple lock. There has been quite a bit of discussion, and quite a lot written, about intergenerational unfairness, with calls to abolish the triple lock, including by this House’s Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness, so for many there is a feeling that this might be under threat.

The triple lock introduced in 2010 was, as I understand it, to address the 30 years of decline in the state pension value. As my former colleague Steve Webb said recently, that job is not yet done, and other noble Lords have testified to the fact that the state pension in this country falls well below what is considered to be a minimum income.

There are many reasons to support the triple lock, most particularly for the oldest and the poorest pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, makes a good point when she says that it may not be the ideal way to help the oldest pensioners, but if it were to be abolished the oldest and the poorest pensioners would suffer and, according to the Pensions Policy Institute report for Age Concern, the number of pensioners in poverty would rise by 700,000.

The triple lock is also particularly important for women. Two-thirds of pensioners in poverty are women, and the retirement income of low-paid women would drop by 7% if the triple lock were to be abolished. Many retired women did not have the opportunity to build up their own pension as a result of caring responsibilities, and many retired divorced women did not get a share of their husband’s pension as part of their divorce settlement. I therefore also make the point that if the triple lock were to go, younger people would have to find something like £540 a year to avoid poverty in old age.

It would benefit none of us to see the triple lock abandoned and the loss of value to the state pension institutionalised again, as it was in the 30 years running up to 2010. As others have said, it would be a race to the bottom. Some of the reasons given for reviewing the triple lock include the whole argument about intergenerational fairness, which a number of noble Lords have discussed today. Raising the income of pensioners, many of whom are well off, may be seen by younger people to be very unfair, and it is true that many pensioners are well off, provided for by generous private pension schemes and having profited from property prices soaring since they bought their first house.

It is certainly true that circumstances have been much more favourable for those pensioners than for many young people today, but if this is seen as intergenerational fairness there are progressive ways that can deliver the principle of fairness. Several noble Lords have talked about tax, and pensioners with high income can be taxed in the same way as high earners so that people pay according to their means. So perhaps we should look at a fair tax system rather than cutting benefits to pensioners, regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

Another argument I have heard is that everybody should be seen to pay equally for the cost of the pandemic. Of course they should, yet if the triple lock were to be abandoned, the poorest pensioners would suffer disproportionately. Low earners would also suffer if the triple lock were removed. Today’s low-earning young people will have to raise their own income for old age if the state pension has lost so much value that it offers no security to future generations.

Another argument I hear is that the country cannot afford it. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others about the UK pension scheme being one of the least generous in the developed world. I understand that, in the UK, we spend 5.9% of GDP on pensions. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, with the triple lock this will rise to 8% by 2057-58, whereas Germany currently devotes 10% of its GDP to pensions.

It would also be a pity if this debate were to become a culture war, one that pits older against younger people, because that really does not help anyone. Today’s young will be tomorrow’s old and they will be in a similar position of valuing the triple lock for their old age. How we provide income in retirement should be considered to be a policy issue, and the idea that a decent state pension is unaffordable has been demonstrated to be a false one, as other countries have shown.

There is no doubt that many of those suffering from the loss of jobs in the pandemic are young people, and it seems that we are going to have to support them, as we should, but this should not be done at the expense of the many poor and impoverished pensioners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the state pension is the dominant source of income for millions of pensioners, while other noble Lords have pointed out that the uprating of other benefits is also long overdue. I hope that the Minister will address this in her summing up.

It is hard to see who would benefit from scrapping the triple lock other than pension fund managers, as people make their own provision for retirement. The losers are very clear: the poorest pensioners, oldest pensioners, women pensioners and today’s low-paid workers, who will be tomorrow’s pensioners in poverty if the value of the state pension is allowed to fall in future years. I support the Bill.