Why a third review now?
Back in 2014 Parliament passed the Pensions Act that forces the government to reassess the State Pension age every few years. The first look‑over happened in 2017, the second in 2023, and the latest kicked off in July 2025. The idea is simple: as people live longer, the system needs to stay financially sustainable while still being fair. But it’s not just about numbers – the government also has to consider how changing the retirement age affects everyday people.
At the moment, both men and women can claim their basic state pension at 66. That was a big shift from the long‑standing 65‑year mark, and it’s only a stepping stone. Legislation already sets the next jump to 67 for the 2026/27 financial year. The third review will decide whether that increase is enough, whether it should be delayed, or if another rise is on the horizon.
What the new evidence looks like
The review leans on two heavyweight reports. First, an independent panel led by Dr Suzy Morrissey is digging into everything from health trends to labour‑market participation. Her team is asking blunt questions: Are people in their late 60s still healthy enough to work? Do younger cohorts have the same retirement expectations as older generations?
Second, the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) is feeding the process with fresh life‑expectancy projections. Their latest forecasts show another modest bump in average lifespan, but they also highlight widening gaps between affluent and poorer communities. In richer parts of the country, a 67‑year‑old might still have several healthy years ahead, while in deprived areas, chronic illness can cut that span dramatically.
Who might lose out?
Charities are already sounding the alarm. Marie Curie, which supports people with terminal illnesses, warns that about 7,700 extra individuals could die before ever touching a state pension if the age climbs to 67. Their research points out a stark reality: the impact won’t be spread evenly. People living in high‑deprivation zones and those battling serious health conditions are far more likely to hit the pension wall early.
- Terminally ill workers are twice as likely to die in poverty compared with older retirees.
- Higher‑deprivation areas already see lower average life expectancy, meaning the extra year can be a decisive factor.
- Women, who historically have longer lifespans, may feel the pinch differently than men, especially in low‑paid sectors.
Marie Curie isn’t just counting numbers; they’re urging policymakers to let anyone who is terminally ill claim the pension and related benefits, regardless of age. Their stance is that the safety net should protect the most vulnerable, not slip through their fingers because a statutory age has moved.
What’s next for the policy debate?
The review isn’t a rubber‑stamp. After the reports are in, the Department for Work and Pensions will publish a set of recommendations, and Parliament will have the chance to debate them. Expect a flurry of testimonies from trade unions, business groups, and health charities. The government will also weigh the fiscal side – every extra year of pension payments costs taxpayers money, and the pension fund’s long‑term solvency is a constant pressure point.
What’s clear is that the decision will sit at the crossroads of economics, public health, and social justice. If the next rise goes ahead, it will reshape retirement planning for millions, influence private pension schemes, and possibly reshape the labour market as older workers stay employed longer. If the government chooses to hold the line at 66, it could spark fresh debates about funding the pension system without further age hikes.