Swinney accused of 'misrepresenting' pension reform impact
Swinney accused of 'misrepresenting' pension reform impact

John Swinney has been accused of “misrepresenting” the impact of the Prime Minister’s pension reform.

This week, Andy Burnham announced plans to end the triple lock on pensions by 2030 in order to pay for a national care service in England.

Claim over £4 billion loss

On Thursday, John Swinney claimed the move would see pensions increase by £4 billion less in Scotland by 2050, with Scots receiving “no enhancement”.

The figure takes into account Scotland’s aging population, the Government said, though it will not be able to include the rate of inflation, which has been volatile in recent years.

Marra hits out at First Minister

But, at First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Scottish Labour leader Michael Marra said: “The First Minister this morning misrepresented the position of the UK Government on social care reform and finds himself, as a result, on the same side as the Tories and Reform.

“He knows that pensions will continue to increase every year.

“He knows that reforms will result in very significantly increased funding for Scotland.

“He knows that money can be spent however the Scottish Government likes, whether on fixing our own social care crisis, on education, or, if he wishes, creating new financial benefits for pensioners.

“All of these reforms, First Minister, are huge issues for the country and we have to change, but we need considered honesty in this debate – that’s what people deserve and it’s how we should proceed.”

Swinney responds

Responding to Mr Marra, the First Minister said: “The consequences of the changes announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday will be that pensioners in Scotland will lose out on £2,000 a year and they will get no enhancement in the provisions proposed by the Prime Minister, because all of that money will be used to pay for social care in England.

“So this Government will act as we always have done to protect social care in Scotland – we need better engagement from the Labour Party about how to take that forward.”