← Back to House of Commons Debates
State Pension Age: Review
30 March 2023
Lead MP
Mel Stride
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
TaxationForeign AffairsBenefits & WelfareParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 17
At a Glance
Mel Stride raised concerns about state pension age: review in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I make a statement on the second review of the state pension age. The Government commissioned two reports to form part of the evidence base: one from the Government Actuary and another independent report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe. These reviews highlight the importance of ensuring that we have reliable data before making decisions impacting millions of people, particularly concerning improvements in life expectancy and their sustainability. Despite an increase in life expectancy over the past century, recent trends show a slowing pace compared to previous decades. Therefore, I agree with the recommendation that the rise from 66 to 67 should occur between 2026 and 2028, as previously legislated. However, given recent uncertainties such as the impact of the pandemic and global inflation, Baroness Neville-Rolfe suggests delaying the increase from 67 to 68 until between 2041 and 2043. The Government are committed to a further review within two years of the next Parliament to ensure decisions reflect the latest information on life expectancy and demographic trends. They remain dedicated to providing dignity and security in retirement while ensuring fiscal sustainability.
Question
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the review will still consider bringing forward an increase in the state retirement age to 2037? Does that remain the Government’s policy ambition, or is that now abandoned?
Minister reply
The current rules for the rise from 67 to 68 remain appropriate and are set between 2041 and 2043 based on recent assessments. The Government do not intend to change existing legislation prior to the next review but will consider all options within a 10-year notice period.
Jon Ashworth
Lab
Leicester East
Question
Welcomed the decision not to accelerate the state pension age increase but questioned whether it was due to political considerations given the upcoming election. Criticised the Government for their handling of life expectancy trends and pensioner poverty, blaming austerity measures and the impact of the pandemic on reducing average life expectancy.
Minister reply
Acknowledged the decision not to accelerate the state pension age increase but emphasised that this was due to uncertainties around public finances rather than purely political reasons. Noted that there has been an improvement in pensioner poverty rates since 2009-10.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Question
Disagreed with the decision to delay the state pension age increase, suggesting that long-term planning is beneficial and delaying the decision is a sign of weakness.
Minister reply
Explained that there are uncertainties around public finances due to factors such as labour supply, energy prices, and interest rates which make it appropriate to wait until more certainty is available.
Alan Brown
SNP
Central Ayrshire
Question
Asked why the reports by Baroness Neville-Rolfe were not published earlier and questioned whether this decision was purely political. Criticised Tory austerity measures and their impact on pensioner poverty rates, referencing a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Minister reply
Stated that the reports would be published around the time of the review announcement as promised. Asserted that pensioner poverty has fallen since 2009-10 due to significant interventions and transfer payments from the Government.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Question
Asked about the financial savings if the state pension age were raised by one year to 68.
Minister reply
Offered to write back with detailed information on the potential savings.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Question
Asked why Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s report was not published earlier and inquired whether early access to pension credit would be considered when the state pension age rises.
Minister reply
Responded that he would consider publishing such reports early for future reviews. Indicated no current plans to leave access to pension credit at 66 when the state pension age increases.
David Mundell
Con
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Question
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the various spurious claims that have been made by those who support Scottish independence not just about the amount that would be paid in future for pensions but about who would pay it? Does he agree that the best way to achieve long-term security for Scottish pensioners is for Scotland to remain at the heart of the United Kingdom?
Minister reply
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What matters for sustaining a fair and just pension system is a strong economy. We are stronger together, and if we continue to work together—all the nations of the United Kingdom—we can continue to afford decent pensions for our pensioners.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
Question
The statement has provided clarity on when somebody will receive their state pension—the age of 67—but we also need to focus on what people will receive. The Government’s response to the Future Pension Centre backlogs, and people’s absolute inability to get through for advice on whether to top up their national insurance credits before the 5 April deadline, was just to move the deadline back by four months. That remains woefully inadequate, and it is clear that that will have to be extended again. Will the Secretary of State commit to extending the deadline to April 2025, as I asked for in the first place?
Minister reply
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she acknowledges, there has been an extension to the deadline, and the reasons for that were in the very point she made about waiting times and so on. We are keeping that under review—I can say no more than that—and we are also increasing the amount of resources going into telephony to resolve the issues.
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are real complexities in understanding life expectancy? From listening to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), one would think that it was very easy to understand. The Secretary of State is my constituency neighbour, and the difference in life expectancy between the north and south of our county is over 10 years, with the lowest being in my patch—it is incredibly complex. Does he agree that setting the state pension age is also a complex process, and that it should be set through data-led decision making rather than political point scoring by the Opposition?
Minister reply
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. She is absolutely right that we need to use the best possible data that we have, which is precisely why we have taken the decision that we have, and I am pleased that the Opposition have welcomed it.
Question
I am sure that it is always a relief for a member of this Government to postpone an unpopular decision, especially in the light of what we have seen in France. Like the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I am curious about the likely impact on Treasury calculations and whether it has been factored into recent projections.
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman will know that fiscal sustainability is one of the key issues that we examine in coming to these conclusions and in the work carried out by the independent assessor of these matters. If he has further specific questions about the impact of one particular set of decisions on the fiscal outlook over and above any other, I am happy to discuss those with him outside the Chamber.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Question
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, because we are trying to encourage people to save for their old age and retirement, and it is important that people get as much notice as possible. However, there is a dilemma right now. One of my constituents contacted me to say that she had been saving £1,500 a month for her retirement, which was fixed for September 2022 when she was 67, but by the time she came to realise her pension, it had dropped by £25,000, so she was no longer able to retire. Worse still, she wanted to replace her car so that she could be compliant with the ultra low emission zone because of the Mayor of London’s ULEZ extension, but she can no longer afford to do so.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend has landed a very important point, as I think he knows, and I will leave it there.
Question
Some 31% of pre-state pension age households have no savings at all. Will the Government finally establish an independent pensions and savings commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose, and if not, why not?
Minister reply
I have already identified that we have been bearing down on pensioner poverty. We have stuck with our manifesto commitment to the triple lock, which has seen pensions rise to historically high levels. This is the party that stands firmly behind pensioners.
Question
Blackpool has the lowest life expectancy in England, with men on average living five years less than the national average. Shockingly, in some wards in my constituency, male life expectancy is 13 years lower than the national average. So that people in all parts of the UK can enjoy a broadly similar retirement period and the state pension remains fair for all, does the Secretary of State agree that we must redouble our efforts to reduce such large inequalities in health across this country?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right, and that is why the Government are majoring so hard on the levelling-up agenda. He is right to point to the different life expectancies between regions and, indeed, within regions; there are sometimes stark differences between cities and towns. That is the kind of element that will need to be looked at again when the next review occurs.
Question
My right hon. Friend knows well that pensioners are much more susceptible to rises in the cost of living because they are often on fixed incomes. On behalf of the more than 18,000 pensioners in Southend West, I simply thank my right hon. Friend and this Government for delivering the biggest ever increase in the state pension, which is going up by over 10% in just a few days’ time.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. She is quite right: we have stood by our pensioners. There will be a further £300 cost of living payment to pensioners alongside the winter fuel allowance. We are encouraging as many pensioners as possible who qualify to apply for pension credit, which is worth £3,500 on average. That, in turn, passports pensioners on to £900 of payments in three instalments over the coming year.
Question
People in France are taking to the streets to protest against proposals to raise the state pension age to 64, yet in the UK people are expected to simply accept, despite today’s announcement, that the pension age should continue to rise, perhaps even to 70 or older by the mid-2050s. Given the poverty into which women born in the 1950s were thrown when their pension age was raised with little or no notice, and the fact that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned of a “pensioner poverty time bomb”, can the Secretary of State explain what consideration is given to rising levels of pensioner poverty—it is currently at 2.1 million, although he is seeking to deny that—when decisions are made about raising the state pension age?
Minister reply
I set out in my previous response a number of the measures the Government have taken to make sure we look after our pensioners. I have also made it clear that since 2009-10, pensioner poverty has decreased.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. A number of people in my constituency work in the construction sector and manual labour. To expect someone in their late 60s to work in a manual labour job is simply impractical and unworkable, so I support the Government’s temporary stay of execution on this increase, so that people can retire when they have some semblance of health and strength to enjoy life. However, this again underlines the unfair treatment of the WASPI women born in the ’50s. I noted the Secretary of State’s response on that issue, but it would be unfair of me not to make that comment on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me. May I gently ask him to act on their behalf, to ensure that there is fairness and parity?
Minister reply
As the hon. Gentleman recognised, I am not in a position to comment on the matter he raised, as it is before the ombudsman at the moment, but his comments will have been heard.
Shadow Comment
Jon Ashworth
Shadow Comment
The Opposition agrees that it is not the right time to accelerate a rise in the state pension age, despite previous Government statements supporting such action. The shadow questions whether today's review still considers bringing forward an increase to 2037, indicating this was once a policy ambition but now seems abandoned amid electoral pressure. Ashworth criticises the Government for failing to address the widening life expectancy gap between wealthy and poorer areas, highlighting significant disparities across regions. He attributes these issues to inadequate healthcare access, social care cuts, poverty, job insecurity, poor housing conditions, and rising child and pensioner poverty rates under Conservative rule. While welcoming today's decision not to accelerate the state pension age rise, Ashworth calls it a damning indictment of 13 years of failure by the Government.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.