Scrapping pension triple lock would be ‘morally wrong’, says union chief
Sophie Wingate, Sam Hall and Harry Taylor, Press Association
A leader of a major trade union has said scrapping the pension triple lock to fund social care would be “morally wrong”.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham issued the warning amid speculation that the Government could change the way pensions are increased to partly fund an NHS-style social care system, which Andy Burnham has said he wants to set up after the next general election.
Ministers have refused to confirm Labour’s commitment to the triple lock – which guarantees that pensions will rise each year in line with inflation, 2.5% or average earnings, whichever is the largest increase – will be in the party’s next manifesto.
The Prime Minister has said he wants to set out his “vision” for social care in his Labour Party conference speech on Tuesday.
Hours before his address, Ms Graham told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Labour should consider wealth taxes rather than “pick the pocket of pensioners”.
She said: “When we met with Andy this week, it certainly wasn’t mentioned.
“But I do think that it’s important that Labour make sure that working-class people know that they’re on their side, and this would be a direction of travel that would say the opposite to that.”
Asked whether the lock should be reformed to fund social care, the union boss said: “What I understood the National Care Service to be was a universal benefit: everybody paid in and everybody gets out, and that is what actually the principle of that is.
“Going to a group of people who are getting around £12,500 a year in order to pay for it to take away their security is wrong.
“I think it’s morally wrong.”
Labour’s deputy leader Lucy Powell was the latest minister to refuse to say whether the triple lock could be dropped.
Ms Powell, who is also the Education Secretary, said the party was “committed” to the policy and referenced its inclusion in the party’s 2024 manifesto.
However, despite being pressed by broadcasters, she would not say whether Mr Burnham and Chancellor John Healey were considering ending the policy.
She told Sky News: “I don’t know what Andy’s going to say about that today, but I know that what he’s talking about is this big conversation about solving these big problems, but being really honest with people that they come at a cost.
“They do come at a cost.
“You can’t just solve the social care crisis without having the big conversations about how you’re going to do this.”
Housing Secretary Angela Rayner suggested pensioners could be “willing” to give up the triple lock if they know their money was going towards social care.
And she praised Mr Burnham for being willing to stake his political reputation on fixing a social care system in England which left people facing a “lottery” at the end of their lives.
A care service which, like the NHS, was free at the point of use could cost up to £18.5 billion a year in 2035/6, the Health Foundation think tank has estimated.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Get more trusted Welsh news
Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.
The mistake in this debate is allowing an idea of attacking the poorest and most vulnerable to take hold. There are plenty of ways this group can be helped without giving even more to the wealthiest retirees.
Ms Graham is wrong. The triple lock is unaffordable and public funding needs to be tilted more towards the younger generation. It’s hardly as if the government is talking about scrapping the state pension, just a level of annual increases that can no longer be justified.
“Housing Secretary Angela Rayner suggested pensioners could be “willing” to give up the triple lock if they know their money was going towards social care”
But it won’t. It will either end up lining the pockets of private equity investors who will rush into the sector, pushing up costs or end up being frittered away on the prevailing Govt cause celebre.
It struck me that Andy Burnham is saying that he wants to set up free social care in England and to fund it he is considering scrapping the triple lock and other benefits for the whole of the UK. So we are basically going to fund it. We will be fobbed off with some minor Barnett consequential, nothing like the amount we are going to potentially give up