MPs have raised concerns about recent reports that the UK Government is planning to raise the State Pension age to 68 much earlier than planned, with several pointing out that Office for National Statistics (ONS) data does not show life expectancy is increasing in all areas of Great Britain, especially Scotland.
The Sun recently reported that people born in the 1970s and later may be told they must work for longer in the Spring Budget on March 15, this would see the State Pension age rise to 68 by the end of the 2030s, instead of the mid-2040s, affecting everyone currently aged 54 and under. It will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028.
During a general debate on the issue, Work and Pensions select committee chairman Sir Stephen Timms insisted ministers must publish the latest Government-backed research on the State Pension age before they make any decision to raise it. He told the Commons: “Even before the pandemic hit, the improvements in life expectancy which we had seen over the last century had almost ground to a halt.”
The East Ham MP urged the UK Government to publish the latest independent report into the State Pension age, completed by Baroness Neville-Rolfe last September, before the Budget this Spring. He stressed “these are very important public policy questions” and therefore “ought to be debated in Parliament and amongst the public before the Government announces its decision”.
Sir Stephen added: “We shouldn’t just see the evidence afterwards, after the Government has announced what it plans to do, because the chance of changing the Government’s mind at that point, it just isn’t going to happen.”
His comments were supported by Lib Dem MP, Wendy Chamberlain who said: “I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham [Sir Stephen Timms] that we should be publishing any reports and looking at this issue before the Government makes a final decision in the public space.
“This debate is an opportunity for the Government to make a political statement to commit to some of the existing methodologies we have used to date for the state pension age, and primarily that means keeping it based on life expectancy.”
The North East Fife MP added: “Evidence suggests it is falling, so far from seeing the retirement age going up faster, we should be seeing no change or at the very least a slowdown in planned increases.”
She also urged the UK Government not to “forget the faces behind the figures” if the future of retirement is to be based on statistics alone.
SNP MP Patricia Gibson also pointed out that life expectancy in Scotland is “stalling” and has been “falling for the past two years” north of the border. She asked Conservative MP Nigel Mills, who opened the debate: “Does he agree that, in that context, it seems bizarre to use that information to raise the age further and faster?”
He responded: “If we accept that we should stick to the principle that we get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, the reason why we would increase the State Pension age is that we have seen a three-year increase in life expectancy, and that should give us two more years on the State Pension age.
“So for every 12 months life expectancy goes up, people should effectively get four months of that in retirement and expect to work for eight months of it.”
But he added: “The hon. Lady is right: the data does not now show, sadly, life expectancy increasing, certainly not at the rate that was forecast by all the actuarial calculations at the time of previous reviews.
“The data for the 2018 to 2020 reference period showed that male life expectancy had fallen by seven weeks compared with the 2015 to 2017 reference period, and female life expectancy had gone up by half a week, or something really quite insignificant.”
Mr Mills also urged the UK Government to confirm that there will be at least 10 years’ notice before raising the State Pension age to 68, as per previous policy.
He said: “Increases in the State Pension age should always come with 10 years’ notice, so we should never give people less than 10 years to have to change their retirement plans. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be at least 10 years’ notice.
“Furthermore, we should make one of these changes only every 10 years; we should not be making multiple changes. Had the Cridland review been handled differently, we could have had the increase to 66 from 2011, the increase to 67 in 2014, and then the move to 68 a few years after that. That would have been far too much change too quickly for people to handle.”
Work and Pensions Minister Laura Trott said it is current UK Government policy, following the Cridland review in 2017, to “bring the rise to 68 forward to 2037-39”, adding: “That is the baseline. We’re required under law to review this every six years and that is what is being undertaken currently.”
On life expectancy, she said: “The most recent ONS projections have a slower rate of improvement in life expectancy than those that informed the Pensions Act 2014 and 2017.
“Nevertheless, despite the slower improvement rate, ONS projections continue to show an increasing life expectancy over time and the number of people over state pension age is expected to continue to rise.”
The UK Government’s second review of the State Pension age is due to be published before the deadline on May 7, 2023.
To keep up to date with the latest State Pension news, join our Money Saving Scotland Facebook page here, or subscribe to our newsletter which goes out four times each week - sign up here.
