Minister defends Burnham plan to slash state pension triple lock as Tories warn it will be another winter fuel payments disaster

Ministers defended Andy Burnham's plan to slash the state pension triple lock today.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the controversial downgrade was the 'right answer to a difficult question'.

He insisted the estimated £15billion a year saved by 2040 would be invested in a national social care service under the 'new settlement'.

But his shadow Helen Whately warned it was a 'U-turn waiting to happen', comparing it to the Government's disastrous efforts to cut winter fuel payments. 

Since the Coalition years, the state pension has gone up every year by the highest out of inflation, earnings and 2.5 per cent. 

But the Government is pledging to legislate so that from 2030 the earnings link is watered down, pegging the level to a proportion of average incomes. 

Mr Burnham told Labour conference that the move could help pay for his plan to create NHS-style social care provision. 

Although he ruled out the move before the next election to avoid breaking the Labour manifesto, it is thought that legislation could be passed as early as next year. 

In his statement to MPs this afternoon, Mr McFadden said there had been 'much debate' over the triple lock.

'We believe our plan is the right answer to a difficult question that has been ignored for too long,' he said.

'This will mean that the state pension will not continue to outpace average earnings as it would have under the triple lock.'

Mr McFadden said the changes would 'end what is known as the ratchet effect, that makes the triple lock consume a greater and greater share of national wealth over time – and which means that reform at some stage was inevitable'.

He went on: 'We are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners and under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall.

'In addition, we've asked the Pensions Commission to include suggestions for further supporting lower-income pensioners in their final report to be delivered next year.'

Ms Whately said the Government did not seem concerned about what is 'fair or right'.

'Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners, rather than tackle the fastest-growing part of the benefits bill - working age welfare,' she said.

The shadow work and pensions secretary said the PM is 'desperate for cash' to fund a national care service which could cost £18billion a year or even more.

'The savings he is hoping for will hardly touch the sides,' she said.

'Their last PM came after pensioners' winter fuel payments. Not a plan that stood the test of time...'

Ms Whately said Mr McFadden was attempting to shift the blame by crediting pensions minister Torsten Bell with the policy.

'I suspect he can see this is a U-turn in waiting,' she added.