The OBR would have to revise spending forecasts if the PM and Chancellor axed hike in pension age (Image: Getty)
Campaigners are calling on Labour to scrap plans to hike the pension age to 68 as fears mount that millions of Britons will face hardship and have to work longer than expected. The state pension age is due to rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046 but a Government-commissioned review is underway and there are concerns this could be brought forward by as many as seven years. Champions of older Britons warn that many people will be in poor health and not be able to work until they are 68. There are concerns ageing citizens will be forced to go without “essentials” or be pushed into debt.
Fears intensified when the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) stated its Government spending projections were based on the assumption “the state pension rises to 68 in 2037-39, and then to 69 in the 2070s”. The OBR said in its fiscal risks report in July that the “Treasury has confirmed to us that this is the Government’s current policy position”. The spending watchdog warned that if the early rise did not take place this “would cost an average additional £6billion” every year. Conservatives are demanding the Government “come clean” and “tell the truth” about whether there is a plan to hike the pension age early.
The Government has said it “cannot pre-empt the outcome of the state pension age review” which it launched last year, but leading advocates for older Britons are urging ministers not to make people wait until 68 before they can access the state pension, which today stands at £241.30 a week.
Morgan Vine of Independent Age said the charity’s research found one in five people aged 60-64 lived in poverty, and this was the case for just over a third of single-person households.
She said: “Raising the state pension age risks leaving people who are already struggling financially facing an even longer wait for financial support… It should not be assumed that everyone can work for longer, particularly those living with poor health, disability or caring responsibilities.”
Ms Vine warned that “health inequalities” mean people on “lower incomes are less likely to be able to work for longer”.
She said: “When someone is forced to bridge an unemployment gap until they receive their state pension, it can mean running down savings, accumulating debt, or going without essentials… Independent Age believes the state pension age should remain at 67, rather than rise to 68 as currently planned.”
Dennis Reed, seen here delivering a petition to Downing Street, is an ardent pensions campaigner (Image: Ian Vogler / Daily Mirror)
Dennis Reed of campaign group Silver Voices said there is “no case” for increasing the pension age to 68 because “healthy life expectancy is falling and employers are still getting away with age discrimination at work”.
Pointing to the challenges faced by people born between 1965 and 1980, he said: “It is Generation X who will be most affected by this change and they are already facing more job insecurity, worse private pensions and attacks on the triple lock. It is disgraceful that policy on this huge public issue is being decided behind closed doors in the Treasury.”
The Health Foundation warned in April that the number of years men and women spend in in good health has fallen by approximately two to just under 61. The concern about a hike in the pension age comes as Andy Burnham has announced that the triple lock – which ensures the state pension rises by whichever is highest, increases in inflation, earnings or 2.5% – will end in its present form after the next election. The automatic annual link with earnings will go, although the state pension is still expected to keep track with longer-term earnings growth.
Alan Lees, chief executive of the National Association of Retired Police Officers and a spokesperson for Later Life Ambitions, which represents more than 250,000 pensioners, pushed for clarity from the Government on whether the pension age will rise sooner than has been legislated for.
He said: “Pensioners of today and tomorrow must be provided with clarity. Those in later life, whether retired or still working, deserve better than uncertainty, worry, and haphazard policy decisions that can upend the financial planning that is crucial in a cost-of-living crisis.The Government has the power to put an end to this unhelpful speculation, and it should do so at the earliest opportunity, rather than leaving millions to worry about their financial futures.”
Conservatives argue that Labour has “effectively banked the change in the state pension age into their spending forecasts” and say this “would be very difficult to undo”. The party says that if an early rise is to go ahead, “anyone reaching 68 in 2037 is entitled to 10 years’ notice” and letters would need to be sent out in April 2027.
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately wants Labour to ‘come clean’ (Image: Humphrey Nemar)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately said: “Labour refuse to come clean about state pension age changes which will affect around six million people. Labour has banked billions in savings from bringing forwards the rise in the state pension age and now have just months to tell the public before we have another WASPI-style scandal.
“Changes to the state pension should be flagged far in advance, so working people can make choices and adjust their savings and pension plans accordingly.”
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is nonsense. Only one party has proposed bringing the state pension age increase to 68 forward by several years to 2037 – and that is the Conservative Party when they were in office. We have set out plans to adjust the triple lock from 2030 so that we can guarantee a sustainable state pension that rises every single year, without forcing people to wait until their 70s to receive it, which is what the Conservatives would do.”
The Pensions Commission, launched last year to review the pensions system as a whole for the next Parliament, is due to publish a final report and recommendations in February 2027. Suzy Morrissey’s independent review of the state pension age is considering the “merits of linking state pension age to life expectancy, including on fairness between generations”.
Back in 2017, John Cridland, a former director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, led an independent review which recommended the “state pension age should increase to age 68 over the two-year period 2037-39”. Then-Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary David Gauke said the Government accepted the recommendations but the law has not been changed so the rise to 68 is still on course to take place between 2044 and 2046.
Andy Burnham Urged to Scrap Plans to Raise State Pension Age to 68
Andy Burnham is facing calls to reconsider plans to increase the state pension age to 68, with the debate highlighting growing concerns about retirement security, the cost of living and the challenges facing older workers across Britain.
The state pension age is one of the most consequential decisions in retirement policy. It determines when people can begin receiving their state pension, making any proposed increase a major issue for workers approaching retirement. For people who have spent decades in physically demanding jobs, or whose health makes working into their late sixties difficult, even a small change can have significant consequences.
Those urging Burnham to abandon the proposed rise argue that millions of people have planned their later lives around the expectation of receiving their pension at a particular age. They believe that changing the timetable risks creating uncertainty for people who have limited opportunities to rebuild their savings or extend their working lives.
However, the debate also involves difficult questions about public finances, life expectancy and the long-term sustainability of the pension system.
Why the Pension Age Matters
For many people, the state pension represents the foundation of retirement income. Although some retirees have workplace pensions, private savings or other assets, others depend heavily on the money they receive from the state.
An increase in the pension age could mean that some workers must remain employed for longer before becoming eligible for their state pension. Those unable to continue working may have to rely on savings, occupational benefits or other forms of support during the gap.
Critics argue that this burden would not fall equally across society. People in office-based occupations may find it easier to continue working into their late sixties than those whose jobs involve heavy lifting, long shifts, repetitive physical tasks or exposure to difficult working conditions.
Health inequalities are another important consideration. Not everyone reaches their late sixties in the same physical condition, and some workers may struggle to remain in employment until the proposed retirement age.
Campaigners therefore want the government to consider not only average life expectancy, but also differences in healthy life expectancy, occupation, income and regional circumstances.
The Case for Scrapping the Increase
Those opposing a rise to 68 argue that retirement policy should reflect the realities of working life rather than relying on a single age threshold for everyone.
Many workers begin their careers early and spend decades paying taxes and National Insurance contributions. For those people, an additional year or two in employment can feel like a significant change, particularly if they have already made plans for retirement.
Campaigners also point to the pressure on household budgets. Housing costs, food prices, energy bills and other everyday expenses can make it difficult for people to save enough to compensate for a delayed state pension.
For workers with limited private savings, the prospect of waiting longer for pension income may create anxiety about how they will manage financially. Some could feel compelled to continue working despite health problems or caring responsibilities.
Those calling on Burnham to scrap the proposal say retirement policy should provide certainty and protect people who have fewer financial resources. They also argue that people should not be expected to work longer simply because the government faces pressure to control spending.
A further concern is the availability of suitable jobs for older employees. Although some people want to remain in work beyond traditional retirement age, others may encounter age discrimination, redundancy or difficulty finding employers willing to offer flexible hours.
Without better employment opportunities and support for older workers, critics say, raising the pension age could leave some people caught between being too young to receive their state pension and struggling to secure paid work.
Why Governments Consider Raising the Pension Age
The arguments for changing the pension age are primarily linked to public spending and demographic change.
As people live longer on average, pension systems may need to provide retirement income for more years. At the same time, changes in the size of the working-age population can affect the number of taxpayers contributing towards public services and pension expenditure.
Supporters of a higher pension age argue that gradually extending working lives can help manage these pressures. They maintain that decisions taken today must account for the financial commitments facing future generations.
Governments must also balance pension spending against other priorities, including the NHS, social care, housing and support for people with disabilities.
Nevertheless, the financial case for increasing the pension age does not automatically settle the question of fairness. The impact depends on how the change is introduced, which age groups are affected and what protections are available for people unable to work for longer.
Any proposal therefore requires transparent evidence about expected savings, distributional effects and the circumstances of different groups of workers.
The Problem of Unequal Life Expectancy
One of the most contested aspects of the pension debate is the difference between living longer and living longer in good health.
Average life expectancy can conceal substantial differences between people living in wealthier and poorer communities. It can also obscure the different experiences of people in physically demanding occupations and those whose jobs place fewer demands on their bodies.
For a person who remains healthy and employed into their late sixties, a higher pension age may be manageable. For someone who develops a serious illness or becomes unable to work because of chronic pain, the same policy may create considerable hardship.
This is why campaigners often argue that pension reform should include safeguards for people with long-term health conditions, disabilities and demanding employment histories.
Possible approaches could include stronger support for older jobseekers, more flexible retirement arrangements and improved access to disability-related benefits. Such measures would not remove every concern, but they could help address the gap between a national retirement age and individual circumstances.
What Would Scrapping the Rise Mean?
If Burnham were to abandon a planned increase to 68, the government would need to explain how the state pension age would be managed over the longer term and how the associated costs would be funded.
Keeping the pension age lower could offer greater certainty to people approaching retirement. It could also reduce the risk that some workers face a prolonged period without employment income or state pension payments.
However, maintaining the existing timetable would not eliminate the wider financial challenges facing the pension system. Ministers would still need to consider demographic change, pension adequacy and the competing demands on public spending.
Alternative measures might involve changes to taxation, public expenditure priorities or the design of pension policy. Each would bring its own costs and distributional consequences.
For that reason, the debate should go beyond a simple argument over whether the pension age should rise. Voters also need clear information about the alternatives, their likely costs and the groups that would benefit or lose out.
The Need for Clear Answers
The calls for Burnham to scrap the proposed rise underline the importance of certainty in retirement planning. People approaching retirement need to understand when they will qualify for their state pension, how much income they can expect and whether future changes could affect them.
Any government considering reform should communicate its plans clearly, provide adequate notice and explain the evidence behind its decisions. Sudden or poorly explained changes can undermine confidence among people who have spent much of their working lives preparing for retirement.
Burnham would also face questions about how any decision would affect younger workers, who may have decades before they reach pension age but still need reliable rules to plan their finances.
Ultimately, the argument over raising the state pension age to 68 reflects a broader challenge: how Britain can maintain a sustainable pension system while ensuring that retirement remains realistic for people with different incomes, health conditions and working lives.
Those calling for the proposal to be scrapped want greater protection for people who may struggle to work longer. Those concerned about public finances argue that demographic pressures cannot be ignored. Resolving the disagreement requires clear evidence, transparent costs and a serious assessment of who would bear the consequences.
For people across Britain, the central question remains straightforward: should the state expect everyone to work longer, or should retirement policy offer greater flexibility for those whose circumstances make that impossible? The answer will shape not only pension spending, but also the confidence with which future generations approach their retirement.