State pension age review moves forward after discussion of increase to 69
The possibility of the state pension age rising to 69 has edged closer as Labour announces another review of the state pension age. Legislation is already in place for the access age to gradually increase from the current 66 up to 67, between 2026 and 2028.
Labour has now declared that there will be another review of where the state pension age should be set. The last review was conducted by Baroness Neville-Rolfe in 2022.
Mark Pemberthy, benefits consulting leader at consultancy group Gallagher, highlighted that this past review made reference to the potential for further increases to the state pension age. He said: "The previous review of the state pension age in 2022 recommended that, on average, people should expect to receive the state pension for 31% of their adult life, and that the total cost of state pension related expenditure should be limited to 6% of GDP.
"This review also anticipated a need to increase state pension age to 69 from 2046, although this has not yet been legislated for." The Government has outlined the key factors that the review will consider, which will include the idea of linking the state pension age to life expectancy and the role of the state pension age in keeping the state pension affordable and sustainable.
However, Mr Pemberthy expressed doubt that there will be significant changes announced around these issues. He explained: "Life expectancy is a complex issue. For decades, life expectancy rose consistently.
"This trend was halted by the COVID-19 pandemic and has stayed lower since – with 2024 life expectancy still lower than in 2019. But the average masks some wide variances based on occupation, gender, geography, and socioeconomics.
"There is significant concern that further increases in state pension age could mean that some population groups do not get much opportunity to enjoy their state pension." He pointed out some of the issues around attempting to restrict spending on the state pension relative to GDP.
The expert said: "Limiting the cost of state pension as a percentage of GDP is complex and will be dependent on a number of variables including how successful our economy is in the future and also how fast the state pension is increased each year. Currently this is the higher of inflation, earnings or 2.5% [under the triple lock policy] - all of which are significantly higher than our forecast GDP growth over the next few years.
""The triple lock will not be part of the state pension age review, but must be a consideration in the wider pension review if pensions are going to be sustainable for future generations." The full new state pension is now worth £230.25 a week, after payment rates rose 4.1 percent in April in line with the triple lock.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How pension savings could be an indy Scotland's ‘wealth fund'
A national pension fund (NPF) would be a large mutual fund owned by Scottish citizens as distinct from a state-owned sovereign wealth fund. It could be established in law based on mandatory 'auto-enrolment' of all new employees starting work for the first time, with all employers and employees paying contributions into the fund. These contributions would provide entitlement to an earnings-related pension but would also build up a large fund that could be invested to support the Scottish economy and the execution of Scottish Government industrial strategy. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' We need to be clear that pension savings give rise to future financial claims upon the resources and productive capacity of the economy. Unless the economy is capable of meeting the needs of everyone in the future, we are storing up a crisis and conflict over access to goods and services. Pension savings need to be used primarily to support the productive capacity of the economy instead of being allocated for speculation in financial markets. The NPF would quickly build into a substantial fund. The contributions made by new employees would not be drawn down to pay pensions for 40 years or more. Once established, existing workers could be offered the option of transferring in their second pensions. For those with defined contribution pensions, there would be a strong incentive as transferring into the NPF would give them rights to an earnings-related pension. Transfers in would increase the size of the NPF even further. The fund would need to be structured so that there was a 'buffer fund' of cash available to meet operating costs and pay out pension benefits. Workers who had transferred in would reach retirement age earlier than the founding auto-enrolled membership, so after a few years the NPF would need a certain amount of available cash to pay pension benefits. Funds in excess of that required to maintain a buffer fund (Fund A) could be allocated for productive investment. Fund B could be designated for investment in government and corporate bonds, a liquid form of financial asset that can be quickly redeemed for cash if necessary to supplement the buffer fund. Fund C could be allocated for direct investment in infrastructure and in the form of partnerships with businesses, giving the NPF direct equity stakes in individual companies. This fund would play a central role in giving the general public a direct stake in business and infrastructure and form the basis of what could be described as 'mutual capitalism'. Fund D would allocate any remaining funds in tradeable shares with an emphasis on the holding of shares in Scottish companies and taking stakes in foreign companies operating in Scotland. Funds C and D would contribute to the process of taking back control and ownership of our national assets and resources. Funds B and D would rely on there being a Scottish Stock Exchange to facilitate their activities. The funds of the NPF could be enhanced further by allocating revenues derived from the management of Scotland's resources. Initially this might be limited to tax revenues, for example from foreign companies operating in the energy sector. However, over time, as Scotland regains ownership and control over our own resources, the higher revenues could also be used to supplement the funds of the NPF in addition to the share of profits the NPF derives from direct investments in infrastructure and equity partnerships. A NPF would constitute a strategically important part of Scotland's future financial architecture and its evolution would have a significant impact on the Scottish asset management industry. A substantial shrinkage of that industry would be likely, but that would be compensated for with the creation of highly skilled, well-paid jobs needed to drive the successful business partnerships which are central to the NPF's purpose as an investor. The administration of an earnings-related pension system, of which the NPF would be a critical part, would also create well-paid jobs in activities such as financial advice, IT systems development and co-ordination with the tax and welfare systems and related government departments. In out next column I will outline how the NPF could be designed as a provider of earnings-related pensions for all Scottish citizens, integrated with a new state earnings-related pension.
