Tottenham

Question Time

This Question Time episode from Tottenham features a heated debate among Labour, Conservative, Reform UK, and independent panelists on pressing national issues. The discussion opens with the government's proposal to

Key takeaways

• Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh defends amending the triple lock to generate £15 billion annually by 2030, framing it as a necessary step toward free personal care and supporting overworked NHS staff.
• Reform UK's Suella Braverman condemns the policy as a betrayal of pensioners, advocating instead for cuts to migrant welfare, foreign aid, and net zero levies to fund social services.

Main topics

• Social care funding & national care service
• Triple lock pension amendment debate

Notable quotes

"It is genuinely a complete travesty that our generation of politicians have failed to grip social care."

Conclusion

The episode underscores profound political and cultural fractures over welfare

Transcript preview

Speaker 5 (0:00) This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Speaker 4 (0:05) A changing world. I started to dream of flying without any fuel. Solar power. Shifting attitudes. When they saw me, they went, whoa, what's going on here? They weren't ready for a black woman on the bridge. New inventions. Sliced bread. The bakers scoffed at it. They were so wrong. Witness history. First-hand accounts of events that have shaped our world. You wanted to go out and actually scream and say, see, it's happened. Listen on bbc.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Speaker 2 (0:38) For tonight's Question Time, we've come to Tottenham in North London. Our audience, as always, reflects the wide range of political views and the way people vote across the nation. Welcome to Question Time on the BBC News Channel, iPlayer and Sounds. Speaker 2 (1:06) Energy Secretary Miatta van Bullen, one of Andy Burnham's closest allies. Her rise from becoming an MP two years ago to Secretary of State is thought to be one of the fastest promotions in Westminster, says Pitt the Younger in the 1780s. Julia Lopez is the Conservative Shadow Business Secretary. She says there's been a slow grinding squeeze on employers and entrepreneurs and has called on the government to cut the welfare bill in the budget later this month. Suella Bradman is Reform UK's education spokesperson. Her new memoir, Patriot, Empire, Betrayal and Hope, tells the story of her family's migration to the UK, her time as Home Secretary and her decision to leave the Conservatives in January after 30 years with the party. And Olly Dugmore is Executive Digital Editor at The New Statesman. He sparked something of a national debate about the student loan system on this programme, describing it as a government-backed debt trap. And he says the UK has been hamstrung for decades by policies which favour the old over the young. Speaker 2 (2:10) Welcome to our panellists, welcome to our audience here in Tottenham. Good to see you and of course welcome to you at home. Enjoy the programme, join in on social media if you see fit or just sit back and watch things unfold. We'll kick off with our first question, which is from John Angel. Speaker 7 (2:24) Is it fair to also support the current and future pensioners to fix a broken social care system? Or is this a betrayal of our future generations? Speaker 2 (2:35) So, John, not wishing to rush to any conclusions, but I'm assuming that the state's pension is something that might affect you. And as I'm sure you're all aware, Andy Byrne and the Prime Minister announced this week an amendment to the triple lock, and I'll get you to explain that. But what's your feeling about it? Speaker 7 (2:52) I think this has been announced at the very height of the burn and bounce, which is convenient, and I think it may come back to bite him yet. And failures in the social care system aren't just going to be fixed with money, and there's a lot more that needs to be looked at. Speaker 2 (3:09) All right. So, Mietta, this is... So, the current triple lock... where the state pensions decrease each year by the highest of prices, average earnings are 2.5%. So the Prime Minister has suggested an amendment to that, and part of that, because certainly it's not going to be enough on its own, will pay for what he's calling a national care service. So do you want to explain to John why that's a good idea? Speaker 3 (3:33) Yeah, John, look, I think it is genuinely a complete travesty that our generation of politicians have failed to grip social care. And anyone that has to take their loved ones through the care system and navigate through it will tell you harrowing stories of how it is failing us. And so I think it is incredibly brave. It is a hard thing politically to say. I'm not going to run away from this big issue. I'm going to run it. And, you know, the fact that the Prime Minister has done that, and he's done that with the kind of clarity that comes from having experienced it himself, and said, we need to solve this once and for all. And to be really honest, that there will be trade-offs involved in that. And so, yes, the triple lock will be adjusted. And we're doing that in a way that, firstly, we will honour our manifesto commitment, where we said we would protect the triple lock as is. Secondly... We are designing this so that by 2030, the state pension will rise every single year with either inflation or 2.5%, whichever is highest, and that we will keep the relationship and the ratio between state pension and earnings. But the savings from that, we think, will be about 15 billion a year by 2030. And that money can go into a national care service with free... personal care. And that means we don't have the situation we have today where pensioners are having to either completely deplete their savings or sell their homes to get basic care. It means we don't have the travesty of our care workers who, you know, if you've taken your parents to the care system, are doing the most valuable work and being paid poverty wages, where our NHS is picking up the slack and so it's being brought to its knees. And where we can, we can retain that principle which Labour brought in with the NHS, which was something as basic as care, should be free to everyone at the point of use. And so I'm incredibly proud that it's this Labour government that is very clear that we need to grip this and we're Speaker 2 (5:24) going Speaker 3 (5:24) to crack on and do it. Hang on, it's not going to be free. Speaker 2 (5:26) I mean, people will still have to pay if they go into a care home, they will still have to pay accommodation costs, which can be very hefty. So some people may still end up having to sell their homes. Speaker 3 (5:36) Well, so look, our hope is... free personal care means that more people can be in their home for longer. And actually, if people can have the care they need, if they don't need to go through that sort of 15-minute cycle, that is the preference. And look, a national care service that sits alongside a national health service, for us, is the way in which we take this forward. And I don't think we can have another generation of politicians that candidly kicks this into the long grass. And it's families... With caring responsibilities, it's pensions that are ultimately paying the price. Speaker 2 (6:08) Sue Ella. Is this a betrayal of older generations, John is asking? Speaker 8 (6:12) The straight answer is yes. And 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, particularly in Tottenham, actually. You have one of the highest numbers of pensioners who claim pension credit here, which is about, you know, it amounts to about £12,000 of income a year. And it's been... The triple lock ensures financial security for lower income pensioners so that that income rises in line with inflation, wages or 2.5%, whichever is higher. 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, who will have put in, and now they're being robbed of what they're entitled to. I don't think that is fair. There are alternatives to finding funding, like scrapping our welfare, our migrant welfare bill, foreign aid or net zero levies. And also the reality is, is your changes to the triple O will come nowhere near to raising the amount of money needed for your... idealistic proposal of the National Care Service. It will only raise about £17 billion, leaving about £18 billion for Andy Burnham to find. Where's he going to find that? He's going to come most likely for a death tax, which is an inheritance tax on all estates, which means those people who have lower or smaller estates upon their death will be caught by the inheritance tax trap. And the last thing... It's Speaker 3 (7:53) really important that we just don't make stuff up. Well, it's not. I'm sorry. Andy Burnham. Speaker 8 (8:01) I'm so really importantly asked if I can finish my answer, that you are honest with the British people. You're saying you want a national care service. You are misleading people with the exceptional and excessive costs that that will incur. What you're advocating for is another NHS-style organisation. Now, of course the NHS is good. We Speaker 3 (8:19) do Speaker 8 (8:19) want another NHS-style organisation. Well, Speaker 3 (8:21) with Speaker 8 (8:21) NHS mismanagement... APPLAUSE Maternity scandals, NHS bosses on fat cat salaries, NHS England, massive quangos, huge bureaucracy, which actually works in a way that people still can't see a GP. Hang on, Sue, I'm a bit confused. Speaker 2 (8:37) What Speaker 8 (8:37) do you want? When it comes to social Speaker 2 (8:39) care for older people, you want them to carry on. paying for it? Speaker 8 (8:41) Is Speaker 2 (8:41) that what you're saying? So, Speaker 8 (8:42) social care needs fixing. There's no doubt about that. And I've been an MP for 11 years now and I've helped hundreds of families in my constituency with heartbreaking cases of social care, particularly dealing with the costs of adult social care, county councils and local authorities around Speaker 2 (8:58) the country. Speaker 8 (8:58) Do you feel they should have to Speaker 2 (8:59) continue paying for it or not? Speaker 8 (9:00) Well, what I'm saying is we would have, we need to change the model. We need to change the current model. At the moment, it is not sustainable, it is not affordable. But do you think people should continue to have to pay for Speaker 2 (9:10) it? Speaker 8 (9:10) Well, at the moment, the taxpayer is paying, and individuals are paying. And do you think they should continue to do that? Well, we need to reform it. We need to fix the situation. I get that, Speaker 2 (9:20) but I'm just asking very straightforwardly, and maybe reform hasn't come out of the policy, I don't know, but I can't work it out from what you're saying. Do you think people who need social care, be it in their home or in a care setting, should have to... pay for it themselves, or do you think the state should be? Speaker 8 (9:34) I think there is an argument for greater state funding, and that can come from slashing foreign aid. Why are we spending billions of pounds on immigrants who are claiming welfare in this country, on people who come to this country who are not working and claiming universal credit? That's costing hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer money. That's not right. Let Speaker 2 (9:55) me bring the audience in, because there's lots of hands up. So, where should I start? Young man in the blue, you've got a blue polo top on there. Yeah. Speaker 6 (10:02) Yeah, it's my understanding that the triple lock was introduced because pensions had fallen behind wages. Now pensions are ahead of wages. So what's the sense in keeping it is what I don't understand. Speaker 2 (10:14) Okay, the man next to you. Speaker 6 (10:18) First of all, I really do think that what Andy Burnham is doing is very brave. I do think the welfare as a whole bill is just out of control. Part of that is, of course, sorting out social care. However, I don't really have confidence in any government in dealing with social care because actually the NHS is in a complete mess. if we're going to look to sort out social care, let's first sort out the NHS because that in itself is completely out of control. Speaker 2 (10:49) OK. Yes, the man there with the dark blue sweater, yeah. Speaker 6 (10:54) I think Suella's quite dishonest. She talks about dishonesty. She's quite dishonest when she talks about this. She was part of the Conservative government that brought in the two-child cap. And actually, DWP figures show that you're twice as likely to be in poverty as a child in this country than you are as a pensioner. Pensioners are actually the group, the demographic in this country, that are least likely to be in relative poverty. And she was the one that defended the two-child cap. Whilst years and years now in reform, but previously at the Conservatives standing by the Triple Ordinance. Speaker 2 (11:22) Can Speaker 6 (11:22) I just Speaker 8 (11:22) come back to that? Very briefly, because I've Speaker 6 (11:24) got to Speaker 8 (11:24) bring the rest Speaker 6 (11:24) of Speaker 8 (11:24) the panel. Which Speaker 2 (11:24) is that actually Speaker 8 (11:24) the UK spends the least compared to other G7 countries on pension credit and support for pensioners. And actually, when you meet pensioner poverty, there might not be many pensioners in the audience tonight. Maybe they're watching at home, question time. But pensioner poverty is crippling. And this whole policy in Asmai Burnham reminds me of Starmer's misguided attack on pensioners with his winter fuel allowance a few years ago, and it proved to be fatal for him. So, Suella, Speaker 3 (11:55) the Institute for Fiscal Studies has been clear that the adjustments that we're talking will not have an impact on pensioner poverty. Every single year, the state pension will be going up. But we cannot, we cannot keep kicking this issue into the long grass because in the end, it's pensioners that pay the price, selling their homes. Speaker 2 (12:11) OK, let me bring this up. The IFS has also been very sceptical about the amount of money you think you're going to save with it. But anyway, Olly. Speaker 5 (12:17) John, I agree with you and I disagree with you. You're absolutely right about the cost here, and the cost is just going to make the service free at the point of use. It is not going to make it better, and it needs to be a lot better. The quality of care that we currently provide is very, very low. In order to do that, we are talking about tens of billions of pounds. We should be upfront about that, if that's what he wants to do. But that's a different order of magnitude to what we're talking about. Where I disagree with you, you spoke about fairness. And I've got to be honest... as someone from a younger demographic, the idea that older people in our society are getting a raw deal compared to us really bothers me. Speaker 5 (13:00) The headline thing is that we are the first modern generation that will have a lower standard of living than any of the ones that have come before it, than the previous one that's come before it. A few concrete examples. We've been denied membership of the European Union. We've been priced out of the housing market. We're going to be the ones that live through the heat waves that are here for the future decades. And the generation below me, Gen Z, I'm a young millennial, I'm kind of on the cusp. Gen Z were asked to sacrifice their education and their social development. in the name of protecting the rest of society from what at the time we considered a very serious pandemic but as we've since learned with time was less dangerous to them as young and healthy people and they did that without complaining and I think we owe them a lot for doing that so this idea that you know pensioners are somehow getting a raw deal really really bothers me. Andy Burnham has done a very brave thing here and I think we should commend him for it because this is a very hot political issue but The Resolution Foundation published a paper in June of this year outlining ways that you might reform the triple lock. And of the two things they offered, they offered what he's put forward now and they offered tagging it to wages. And they described the course of action that he has taken as the less politically courageous course of action. That's the one he's gone for. I'm the only person who's not asking for a vote, so I can be honest with you. The triple lock has not reduced pensioner poverty. It's actually increased since it was introduced. What has reduced it? is pension credit. That's the top up. And it's very important that we keep that. I want to be clear as well. You know, I don't want our pensioners to live in poverty. I think poverty is a scourge and we should eradicate it from our society. But the gentleman who sat in front of you is correct. It's double for children. And at the same time, politicians in our society and sat on this panel tonight will tell you that the triple lock is this unimpeachable, unbreachable component part of our society. whilst maintaining the two-child benefit cap that literally kept hundreds of thousands of children in poverty. It's insane. I have to be honest, this boomer-centric approach to politics means that we're talking about things like, Suella mentioned it there, scrapping net zero or keeping children in poverty. Reform wants to pursue a policy of net zero immigration, right? We have a shrinking working age population and they want to keep the triple lock. So how are they going to get there? Well, you've just heard it. They will cut literally anything else instead of addressing it. It's insane. And I'm sorry to talk