Finance Bill

My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, is absolutely right. The Library produced exactly the kind of report that I have just set out, and—[Interruption.] In the spirit of candour with which the question was asked, I note that there were serious mistakes with the way in which the 10p rate was changed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister, has been very open about that. That is precisely why we need to learn lessons about the way in which tax policy and economic policy is conducted. Generally the rule is, the more transparency, the better, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our amendments, because the transparency at which he hints reveals a further problem in 2011. The Library states that in 2008 the typical household in the retired category spent £353.70 a week, and that the amount would rise to £358 after the VAT increase. That represents a rise in the VAT bill of about £4.30 a week. However, the rise per week in the basic state pension—delivered by the triple lock that was so trumpeted—is less than the increased shopping bill that pensioners will pay. I should also like to make a point about the following year, 2012, because the Chancellor did not present matters very clearly when he announced the Budget. Analysis shows that the Treasury's switch to using the lower-rising consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index to measure price rises means that pensioners' income will fall behind VAT-fuelled price rises in 2012. According to table C2 on page 84 of the Red Book, in 2012 RPI will be 3.2%, average earnings growth will be 2.3%, and CPI will be 1.9%. We can therefore assume that under the triple lock system, the pension increase will be only 2.5%—lower than VAT-fuelled RPI, which will be 3.2%. The increase in pensions will appear to fall behind the increase in prices.