My Lords, I was happy to support previous Conservative Governments in implementing the triple lock, and I support the current Government in honouring their promise. This has been a useful policy in reducing pensioner poverty.
As one of the Members of this House probably keenest to control public spending, I am very conscious of cost, and I have regularly recommended that we should raise the state retirement age, which gives you a substantial reduction and is a fair way of achieving the savings. It is also very much in the spirit of this report, which I welcome; namely, that people in their 60s, unless there is disability or a serious health problem, should be encouraged to work, and they will probably have richer lives as a result. This is now possible because life expectancy is greater than when the lower state retirement pension ages were first set.
More importantly, there are now very few people who do hard manual work. Clearly, they needed a much lower retirement age because they could not continue. Now people have hydraulics, automation and robotics, so it is much more feasible to carry on working for longer. Really, the most power or muscle pressure you now need is the ability for your fingers to press a touchscreen; you are then able to do most of the interesting jobs in our community.
Those who wish to abolish the triple lock or make other changes to pension arrangements would be well advised to remind themselves that the pension is not a welfare benefit but an entitlement based on contributions to the national insurance scheme. Of course, that can all be changed, but it would require complex legislation and a lot of political argument. No Government to this day have been willing to attempt that, I suspect because it would be very unpopular with the public.
The contributory principle is, to me, fundamental. It shows that people have to work and have to pay national insurance. There is an annual sign-off of the fund, with a review. It is a pay-as-you-go fund, not an endowment fund. It embodies a very important contract between generations: the working generation say that they will pay for their parents’ generation on the basis that their children, when they are working, will then pay for them. I do not want to disturb that social contract between generations; I want to keep the contributory principle—you get something for something—and I do not want to take away the triple lock. That would be a great pity.
September 5, 2026
It’s interesting that something that actually does some good i e. Lifting many pensioners out of poverty is alway targeted as unaffordable.
I worked for most of my life in the power industry building, commissioning and maintaining industrial gas turbines. There is no way this job will ever be taken over by AI or any other gimmick.
At 80 I have mobility problems directly as a result of my job. I don’t claim disability benefit and I buy my own cars.
A great deal of money could be saved by restricting the above especially stress related claims etc.
On another note close to my heart, Norway has just applied to the Supreme Court to overturn the EU ban on drilling and exploration as current wells are reducing output.
They have also instructed the power company not to approve any more electricity export cables for the next 4 years. This has cancelled the proposed new connection to Scotland.
Norway agreed to join the European Grid because it was deemed to be a two way street but as the UK blew up perfectly good coal fired Stations, Germany shut down its nuclear and France failed to update its ageing nuclear fleet there has been little or no imports into Norway.
Having had a series of dry spells and shortage of ice melt, Norway lakes are very low. They are now preparing to restrict exports to conserve water for domestic Hydro.
Just another example of the futility of relying on foreigners to provide the UK with electricity.