𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Andy Burnham has been slammed for his “indefensible attack” on pensioners on BBC Question Time after proposing changes to the triple lock. The Prime Minister announced plans to change how pensions are increased during his speech at the Labour conference this week, with payments currently rising by the rate of inflation, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is highest.

From 2030, under the plans, the automatic link to average earnings would be scrapped, with pensions to increase by either 2.5% or the rate of inflation. The savings would be used to fund a national care service in England, but Reform MP Suella Braverman hit out at the plan on Thursday night’s Question Time, suggesting it could jeopardise a major source of “financial security for lower-income pensioners”.

Questioned by a member of the audience on whether the proposal is a “betrayal of older generations”, Ms Braverman said: “The short answer is yes. Andy Burnham’s attack on the triple lock is really indefensible. The triple lock provides a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of pensioners around the country.”

She added: “By attacking it, or modifying it, as Burnham is suggesting, they are cutting off that lifeline, and that’s not fair. These are people who will have worked for much of their lives, and now they’re being robbed of what they’re entitled to.”

The former Tory MP said there were “alternative” sources of funding for the national care service, including “scrapping our migrant welfare bill, foreign aid or net zero levies”. She also accused Labour of not being honest about the money needed to fund the “idealistic” care service, which Mr Burnham said would be covered by the £15billion annual sum raised by the pensions tweak.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned following his speech that the savings would not be enough, and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy appeared to acknowledge “additional funding” could be required in an interview with LBC.

Jonathan Cribb, deputy director of the IFS, said: “Savings are likely to be relatively small in the first few years but rise substantially over time. We should not expect this reform to save enough that it could fund universal social care in the next parliament.”

Mr Burnham refused to budge on his initial estimate in a Sky News interview on Wednesday, however, suggesting the savings “would be enough to pay for social care” but “obviously they’re not released immediately”.

He denied speculation that the shortfall would be plugged with tax rises, adding: “There’s a different way of doing it. If you delay the date of introduction and you introduce a national care service progressively, you could do it in a different way. You could do it earlier.”

The proposal has been criticised by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who said it made more tax rises “inevitable”, and Reform leader Nigel Farage, who said it would “abdicate” the Prime Minister’s “responsibility to British pensioners”.