This week the government launched the third review of the state pension age, which works to consider how apropriate the current rules are for pensioners, based on factors such as life expectancy. Alongside this came warnings from the Department for Work and Pensions, who belive the retirement living standards will see a dramatic drop over decades to come.

While Labour have made it clear they have no intentions to changing the triple lock during this parliament, they may need to accelerate their plans in making the retirement age 68. Although in doing so, they could provide further cover for future governments and avert the potential for a sizeable increase in the state pension age.

Head of public policy at AJ Bell, Rachel Vahey explained: “An increase to state pension age from 66 to 67 is already slated to happen between 2026 and 2028. But it’s less clear what will happen after that.

“There is also an increase to age 68 pencilled in for 2046, but a faster increase is definitely on the cards. The first two reviews of the state pension age advocated bringing this forward, but successive governments have treated the issue like a hot potato. This latest state pension age review, however, may eventually force the government’s hand.”

The expert explained that one of the biggest costs to the treasury year in and year out is state pension benefits, which account for over 80% of the £175 billion pensioner welfare bill. If no intervention of this policy takes place, these costs are set to spiral even further, at nearly 8% of GDP over 50 years.

Back in 2023, with the second state pension age review, it was suggested that the increase in age to 68 should come into place between the years 2041 and 2043. Despite this, Rishi Sunak‘s government decided to not commit to the idea, leaving the new Labour government to make a key decision that could lead towards a long-term sturdy plan.

Vahey commented: “For over a decade, debate about the state pension has centred on maintaining the triple lock guarantee, now totemic of government support for maintaining pensioners’ living standards. Making changes to state pensions is a notoriously fraught endeavour, and Labour has already committed to keeping the triple lock during this parliament.”

But she also commented on the one thing that could actually lead to triple lock reform, adding: “However, if the state pension age review calls for the state pension age timetable to be accelerated, that could provide some cover for future governments to look at reforming the triple lock in order to avert ever more dramatic rises in state pension age. Figures included in the last state pension age review illustrate how alternatives for increasing the state pension could help manage costs.”

The expert suggests that the British public need time in advance to put their retirement plans into place, and bringing forward the change to the mid-2030s would impact those born in the early 1970s. It would mean they would need to make up for an additional year of state pension from their personal savings if they wish to retire at the same time on the same income.

“Past experience shows it will be essential for the government to sing – loudly and clearly – from the rooftops about any rises in state pension age. Everyone should know their state pension age, or we risk people not adequately planning for their retirement.”