Burnham triple lock change for national care service sparks betrayal row

Andy Burnham and the government have set out plans to change the state pension triple lock to help pay for a national care service, prompting a fierce row over whether the move betrays pensioners or finally addresses an unsustainable system.

The proposal would alter the current triple lock, under which the state pension rises each year by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. From 2030, supporters say, the state pension would rise each year by the higher of inflation or 2.5%, while the relationship between the state pension and earnings would be maintained. The change is expected to save about £15 billion a year by 2030, according to those backing it. That money would go towards a national care service with free personal care.

Supporters argue the reform is needed because social care has been neglected for decades. They say pensioners currently face having to deplete savings or sell their homes to pay for basic care. Care workers are paid poverty wages, while the NHS picks up the strain when people cannot be discharged from hospital. A national care service, they say, would sit alongside the NHS and allow more people to stay at home for longer.

Critics have called the plan a betrayal of older generations. They say the triple lock is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of pensioners, including in areas with high numbers of people claiming pension credit. Modifying it would cut off that support, they argue. One panellist said the change was an attack on the triple lock and was indefensible. Others warned it would not raise enough money and pointed to alternative savings from welfare, foreign aid, asylum and net-zero levies. One claim put the shortfall at about £18 billion, saying the change would raise only about £17 billion. Another said it would save only about £600 million a year.

There was also dispute over what the change would mean in practice. A supporter said the plan would honour the Labour manifesto commitment to protect the triple lock. A critic said the change would still leave care home accommodation costs to be paid, so some people could still have to sell their homes. The host of one debate noted that free personal care would not cover accommodation costs, which can be high.

The debate reflects a wider argument about the future of social care. One contributor said local authorities now spend between 71% and 76% of their entire budgets on adult and children's social care. Hospital beds are sometimes blocked because local councils cannot provide care places. The same contributor said even George Osborne, who introduced the triple lock, now regards it as unsustainable. Others said the triple lock is not affordable in its current form and that reform cannot be ducked for another generation.

Political questions remain. The change would not take effect until 2030. Supporters say the timetable allows for a proper national care service to be designed. Critics say it is a raid on pensioners and part of a pattern that began with cuts to the winter fuel allowance. There were also claims that the policy may be designed to avoid damaging Labour in certain seats, and counter-claims that the party is confronting an issue it can no longer ignore.

No full funding package for the national care service has been set out in the coverage. The row now turns on whether the triple lock change can raise enough money, whether pensioners should bear the cost, and whether voters will accept a trade-off between higher support for social care and slower growth in the state pension.