What the government is weighing up
The UK is opening the door to another big change in the state pension age, with a move to 70 firmly in the mix. A new review, commissioned by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall and led by New Zealand policy expert Dr Suzy Morrissey, is looking at whether to link future rises automatically to life expectancy. The aim: keep the system affordable and predictable as the population ages and public finances tighten.
Right now, the state pension age is 66 for men and women. It’s already set to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and to 68 between 2044 and 2046. The review could speed that timetable up or push the ceiling higher. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has put out a call for evidence, and a full review is due by 2029 under rules set in the Pensions Act 2014. A third review is scheduled to start in July 2025, after the current round of data and submissions is in hand.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has made clear that change is on the table to protect the public purse. Ministers argue that with people living longer on average, it’s reasonable to keep the balance between years spent working and years spent drawing a pension. That basic principle goes back to the 2005 Pensions Commission: each generation should spend a similar share of life paying in and receiving support.
The tricky part is that life expectancy is not moving the way experts expected a decade ago. Improvements have slowed, and the pandemic knocked them further. At age 66, people still have many years ahead on average, but the trend is flatter than it was. That creates a dilemma: the system costs more as the population ages, but tying pension age too tightly to life expectancy can feel blunt, especially for workers in physically demanding jobs or in regions with lower longevity.
Dr Morrissey’s review is digging into how other countries handle this. The idea of an “automatic adjustment” is simple: a formula updates the pension age or pension amount as new life expectancy data comes in, avoiding big political battles every few years. In practice, countries take different routes:
- Denmark links the state pension age to life expectancy and has a timetable that moves it up over time, heading toward 70 in the coming years.
- The Netherlands adjusts the retirement age in step with life expectancy at 65, with built-in lead time so people can plan.
- Finland uses a life expectancy coefficient that can alter benefit levels as well as the age threshold.
- Italy applies a “longevity factor” that gradually changes both eligibility and payouts.
Officials like these systems because they smooth the numbers in the budget. But savers and planners complain they make retirement dates a moving target. If the UK goes down this road, the government will need to decide how much notice to give before each change and how to handle groups who would be hit hardest.
What it could mean for workers and retirees
For anyone in their 40s and 50s, the review matters now, not later. If the government accelerates the move to 68, or maps a path to 69 or 70, that shifts when you can claim the state pension. There’s a knock-on for the normal minimum pension age (NMPA) too — that’s the earliest you can dip into most private pensions. It’s 55 today, rising to 57 on April 6, 2028, and it’s typically kept 10 years below the state pension age. If the state pension age goes up, the private pension access age could follow.
Two other policies sit in the background. First, the “triple lock” on the state pension — which lifts payouts by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5% — pushes spending higher in years of fast inflation or wage growth. Second, automatic enrolment into workplace pensions means more people are saving than a decade ago, but minimum contributions are still modest for many. The state remains a vital pillar for low and middle earners.
The distributional impact is the flashpoint. People in higher-paid, less physical jobs usually work longer and live longer, so they get more years drawing a pension. Those in manual roles or with poorer health often don’t. That’s why unions and charities argue that a simple life-expectancy link can be unfair. When the UK last debated an earlier move to 68, those concerns were front and center and helped delay decisions until fresh data could be reviewed.
If ministers choose an automatic mechanism, they’ll still have to settle some big design questions:
- Lead time: How many years’ notice will people get before a change takes effect — five, seven, or more?
- Data source: Which life expectancy measure will be used, and how often is it updated?
- Flexibility: Could there be early access for those in ill health or in specific occupations, with an actuarial reduction to reflect longer payout?
- Transitions: How will the government protect those close to retirement when a new rule lands?
There’s precedent for handling the politics carefully. Past reforms included long lead times and transitional protections, especially when equalising women’s and men’s pension ages and later when accelerating schedules. Even so, many people felt blindsided — a reminder that communication matters as much as the policy itself.
The fiscal stakes are large. As the population ages, the share of national income spent on pensions and age-related benefits goes up unless something else gives — later retirement, slower benefit growth, higher contributions, or higher taxes. Moving the state pension age is the lever governments reach for because it has a clean effect on costs and on the employment rate of older workers. But it’s never just a spreadsheet decision; it lands in real lives.
One option the review could examine is a “glidepath”: set a default link to life expectancy with a cap on how fast the pension age can rise, plus a minimum notice period. Another is a mixed model that uses the link most years but allows a ministerial override — with formal justification — after big shocks like a pandemic. A third path would keep fixed ages but commit to more frequent reviews tied to independent analysis.
What about the labour market side? Raising the pension age tends to push up employment among people in their 60s, but only if the jobs are there and employers adapt. That means better occupational health support, more flexible hours, and retraining for workers in physical roles. Without that, the risk is more people claiming sickness or disability benefits rather than staying in work, which undercuts the savings.
Regional differences will also be part of the debate. Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are lower in some parts of the UK than others. A single national age is simple, but it can be blunt. Few countries set different pension ages by region — it’s messy and can feel arbitrary — so the more realistic answer is to improve early access rules for people with long contribution records or serious health limits.
For savers trying to plan, three practical points stand out. First, watch the review timetable — proposals could arrive with several years of notice, but the direction looks clear: later access over time. Second, check private pension rules, especially if you were born after April 1971 and will be affected by the NMPA rising to 57 in 2028. Third, diversify between workplace pensions, ISAs, and emergency savings so you’re not relying on a single date or rule.
Politically, this is a test of how the government balances arithmetic and fairness. Reeves and Kendall are signalling they want a system that’s sustainable without springing surprises. The call for evidence is the first step; next comes the hard part: choosing a model, spelling out the timelines, and explaining who gets what protection. That’s where public trust will be won or lost.
Expect months of wrangling. Industry groups will push for clarity and long lead times. Unions will press for exemptions and better support for older workers. Think tanks will argue over the formula. And millions of people in their 50s will want one thing above all: certainty about when they can retire and what they’ll receive. The review can’t remove all uncertainty, but it can make the rules clearer and the path more stable.
Write a comment