Pensions: Triple Lock Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Sikka

Main Page: Lord Sikka (Labour - Life peer)

Pensions: Triple Lock

Lord Sikka Excerpts
Wednesday 16th March 2022

(2 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, I accept what the noble Baroness says and I will take that back to the department. The rate is creeping up; it is at 73% now. We just need to work harder at that as this is money that belongs to those people.

Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I would like to debunk the Minister’s statement that somehow the Budget did not permit the Government an increase in pensions, especially as the Government gave a £4 billion tax cut to the bankers. The national insurance fund had a surplus of about £43 billion, more than enough to fund the triple lock. In addition, if the Government had wanted, they could have got more, for example by taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income and charging national insurance on the same. That would be another £25 billion. Will the Minister admit that the real problem is that the Government are choosing to inflict hardship on our pensioners? It is a political choice, not an economic necessity.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I do not agree with the noble Lord. For a start, there is no surplus in the fund that can be simply drawn on. The Government Actuary’s Department recommends that a surplus is kept in the national insurance fund to cover day-to-day variations in spend and the surplus is lent to the Government while that happens. It cannot simply be spent again. The money is invested, it is ring-fenced and there is no question of the Government being in a position to use this facility to extract money from the fund as an extra source of revenue.