State pension age change to 65 call update as DWP issues statement
Calls to bring the UK State Pension age back down to 65 have gathered momentum, putting fresh pressure on the Government as thousands of people demand a rethink of the retirement system.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has now issued its official response to a parliamentary petition calling for the change. While the statement delivers disappointing news for campaigners hoping for an immediate reversal, it confirms that a wider review of the State Pension age is underway.
The petition, launched by Michelle Gill, has attracted around 80,000 signatures, according to the figures reported in the campaign update. Reaching 100,000 signatures would mean it is considered for a debate in Parliament, although this would not guarantee that MPs would debate it or that the Government would change its policy.
The campaign argues that people aged 65 and over should not be forced to wait longer for their State Pension when health problems, caring responsibilities and limited employment opportunities can make remaining in work difficult.
Its demands come as the State Pension age rises from 66 to 67 between April 2026 and April 2028 under the current timetable. The change means some people approaching retirement will need to bridge an additional period without their State Pension, potentially placing pressure on savings and household finances.
For campaigners, the central question is whether a retirement age designed around longer average lifespans adequately reflects the very different circumstances experienced by people across the UK.
DWP delivers disappointing response to campaign
The DWP has made its position clear: there are currently no plans to reduce the State Pension age to 65.
In its response to the petition, the department said increases in life expectancy over the past century had been driven by advances in medical treatment and generally healthier lifestyles. It argued that pension policy must take account of an ageing population and the financial implications of providing retirement benefits over longer periods.
The department cited Office for National Statistics projections suggesting that, in 2026, a 66-year-old man in the UK could expect to live for an average of another 19.3 years, while a woman of the same age could expect a further 21.9 years.
By 2046, those projected remaining lifespans are expected to increase by an additional 1.6 years.
The figures form part of the Government’s argument that the State Pension age must be considered in the context of changing demographics. If people receive the State Pension for longer on average, the total cost of providing those payments can rise, placing additional demands on public finances.
However, average life expectancy does not tell the whole story. It does not mean that every person will live to the same age, remain healthy into their late sixties or have the same ability to continue earning an income.
For someone working in a physically demanding occupation, living with a disability or caring for a family member, the prospect of remaining in employment until 67 may be considerably more challenging than it is for someone in a flexible office-based role.
That difference lies at the heart of the debate over whether a single State Pension age can be considered fair for everyone.
DWP Secretary of State Pat McFadden (Image: Getty Images)
The DWP’s response does not rule out every possible future change. Instead, it confirms that the current policy will remain in place while the Government considers the evidence as part of its Third State Pension age Review.
The review is expected to assess what retirement age is appropriate for future decades, balancing the need for fairness against the long-term sustainability of the pension system.
For campaigners, that process offers an opportunity to raise concerns about health inequalities and the financial difficulties experienced by people who cannot work until the State Pension becomes available.
Nevertheless, anyone hoping for an immediate return to a retirement age of 65 has received no such assurance from ministers.
Petition highlights hardship facing older workers
The petition calls for the State Pension age to be reduced to 65, arguing that the change could allow people to retire with dignity and avoid financial hardship.
It also suggests that earlier retirement could free up employment opportunities for younger workers entering the labour market.
The petition states: “Many aged 65-67 face poor health, caring pressures, and limited work options, which we think is unfair.”
These concerns reflect a wider argument about the gap between the official retirement age and the age at which some people can realistically remain in employment.
Older workers may face difficulties finding a new job after redundancy, particularly if their skills or qualifications no longer match employers’ requirements. Others may be unable to continue working because of long-term health conditions, physical limitations or responsibilities for relatives who need support.
The consequences can be severe when a person has not yet reached State Pension age but is no longer able to earn a regular wage.
Without access to their State Pension, some may need to rely on savings, occupational pensions or means-tested benefits, depending on their individual circumstances. Those with limited resources may find themselves particularly exposed to rising housing, food and energy costs.
The campaign has therefore placed renewed attention on a difficult question: should the age at which people qualify for the State Pension depend primarily on national demographic trends, or should greater weight be given to the health and employment circumstances of different groups?
There is no simple answer. A lower pension age could provide earlier support to people struggling to remain in work, but it would also mean the Government paying the State Pension to eligible people for longer on average. That would have implications for taxation, borrowing and the funding available for other public services.
The Government’s challenge is to demonstrate that its approach accounts for both sides of the equation: the cost of providing retirement income and the real-life consequences for people who cannot easily work for longer.
MPs warn pension age rise could deepen poverty
The campaign has gained support amid concerns raised by the Work and Pensions Committee about the impact of increasing the State Pension age to 67.
The committee has argued that ministers must consider the consequences for people whose health deteriorates before they become eligible for their State Pension, particularly in areas where healthy life expectancy is relatively low.
Its report highlighted an increase in the proportion of people aged 60 to 64 reporting a work-limiting health condition, rising from 28% to 31%.
It also pointed to a decline in healthy life expectancy at birth over the decade to 2024, alongside widening inequalities between the least and most deprived areas.
The geographical differences are particularly striking. The report cited Richmond upon Thames as an area where people could expect to live around 70 years in good health, compared with approximately 51 years in Blackpool and Hartlepool.
Such disparities raise concerns about whether people across the country have the same practical opportunity to remain in employment until the age of 67.
Someone living in an area with higher healthy life expectancy may be more likely to remain active and economically independent for longer. By contrast, people in communities facing poorer health outcomes may encounter greater obstacles when attempting to work through their mid-sixties.
The committee also examined the effects of the previous increase in the State Pension age from 65 to 66, which took place between late 2018 and 2020.
It warned that the income poverty rate among 65-year-olds more than doubled following that change. The committee said the experience raised concerns about the consequences of increasing the pension age to 67, particularly for people who are already financially vulnerable.
It also highlighted that half of pre-pensioners aged between 60 and 66 in the lowest income group were already frail, leaving them at risk of significant deterioration in their physical and cognitive functioning.
These findings strengthen the argument that changes to pension eligibility cannot be assessed solely by looking at average life expectancy or the overall cost of State Pension payments.
The age at which people can claim their pension can affect whether they can afford to leave work, manage health problems and maintain a reasonable standard of living.
However, the committee’s concerns do not automatically mean that the Government will reverse the planned increase. They instead place pressure on ministers to explain how people who cannot continue working will be protected.
Calls for additional support for 66-year-olds
Rather than immediately reversing the State Pension age increase, the Work and Pensions Committee has urged the Government to consider additional financial support for people who reach 66 but cannot continue working until they qualify for their pension at 67.
One proposal discussed by the committee was increasing Universal Credit for this group.
The report cited an estimate that increasing Universal Credit in the year before State Pension age could cost around £600million annually. It compared this with projected savings of £10.5billion a year once the State Pension age reaches 67, relative to the cost if it had remained at 66.
The committee argued that ministers should not allow older people to experience an extended period without adequate financial assistance simply because they have not yet reached the qualifying age.
Under the current system, eligible people who are unable to work may be able to claim Universal Credit, but the amount they receive depends on their circumstances, including income, savings, housing costs and household composition.
The report warned that some 66-year-olds could be left relying on a standard Universal Credit payment of approximately £425 a month, a sum that may be difficult to stretch across essential living costs.
The exact amount available to an individual will depend on the applicable rates and their circumstances. The figure should not be taken as a guaranteed payment for everyone approaching State Pension age.
Nevertheless, the broader concern is clear: people who are unable to work because of ill health or other barriers may face a difficult financial gap between leaving employment and qualifying for their State Pension.
A targeted increase in support could offer a way to reduce that pressure without abandoning the planned rise to 67. But it would require decisions about eligibility, the level of assistance and how the additional spending would be funded.
Campaigners seeking a return to 65 may argue that such measures do not go far enough. For the Government, however, targeted support could be one option for addressing the committee’s concerns while retaining the current pension timetable.
What happens next in the State Pension age review?
The DWP has confirmed that the Third State Pension age Review is underway. It will examine what State Pension age is appropriate for future decades, taking into account fairness, sustainability and a range of evidence.
According to the department, that evidence will include ONS life expectancy projections, findings from the Government Actuary, independent reports by Dr Suzy Morrissey and the Pensions Commission, as well as lessons from previous increases.
The DWP has also acknowledged that people aged 50 and over can encounter barriers to entering, remaining in or returning to work.
These include ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, menopause and outdated skills or qualifications.
That acknowledgement is important because it recognises that longer lives do not necessarily translate into longer working lives for every individual.
The review could help shape future decisions, but its existence should not be interpreted as confirmation that the State Pension age will be reduced. The department has explicitly stated that there are no plans to lower it to 65.
Meanwhile, the petition’s next milestone is 100,000 signatures. Reaching that threshold means the petition will be considered for a parliamentary debate under the petitions process, but it does not guarantee a debate date, a vote or a change in policy.
For people approaching retirement, the immediate position therefore remains unchanged: the State Pension age is scheduled to rise to 67 by April 2028.
Anyone unsure of their own qualifying date can check their State Pension age through the official GOV.UK service and review their National Insurance record and potential pension entitlement.
Those who expect to struggle financially before reaching pension age may also wish to seek advice about benefit eligibility, workplace pension options and other available support.
Ultimately, the campaign has exposed a tension that ministers cannot easily avoid. Raising the pension age can help control long-term public spending, but it may also leave some people facing hardship if they are unable to remain in employment.
The DWP’s review offers an opportunity to examine that balance, yet its latest statement makes clear that a return to 65 is not currently Government policy.
For campaigners, the next challenge will be to turn growing public support into sustained parliamentary pressure. For ministers, it will be to show that the future pension system can remain financially sustainable without leaving people behind because of ill health, regional inequality or a lack of realistic employment opportunities.