Burnham pressed to ditch pension age rise to 68

Campaigners are demanding Labour scrap the planned rise in the state pension age to 68, as fears mount that millions of Britons could be forced to work longer than expected and face real hardship.

The state pension age is due to rise to 68 between 2044 and 2046, yet a Government-commissioned review is under way and there are concerns the change could be brought forward by as many as seven years. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already based spending projections on the assumption the age rises to 68 in 2037-39, and then to 69 in the 2070s, after the Treasury confirmed that as the current policy position.

The spending watchdog warned that if the early rise did not happen it would cost an average additional £6billion every year. Champions of older people say many will be in poor health and simply unable to keep working until 68, risking debt or going without essentials.

Morgan Vine of Independent Age said the charity’s research found one in five people aged 60-64 lived in poverty, and just over a third of single-person households. “Raising the state pension age risks leaving people who are already struggling financially facing an even longer wait for financial support… It should not be assumed that everyone can work for longer, particularly those living with poor health, disability or caring responsibilities. Health inequalities mean people on lower incomes are less likely to be able to work for longer. When someone is forced to bridge an unemployment gap until they receive their state pension, it can mean running down savings, accumulating debt, or going without essentials. Independent Age believes the state pension age should remain at 67, rather than rise to 68 as currently planned.”

Dennis Reed of Silver Voices said there is “no case” for increasing the pension age to 68 because “healthy life expectancy is falling and employers are still getting away with age discrimination at work”. He pointed to Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, already facing job insecurity, weaker private pensions and pressure on the triple lock, and called it disgraceful that policy on this scale is being decided behind closed doors in the Treasury.

Britain cannot keep treating working people as a cash machine for Whitehall forecasts. A country that wants to stand on its own two feet owes clarity and fair notice to those who have paid in all their lives, not sudden shifts that punish the sick and the low-paid while the books look tidier. The state should shrink its appetite for other people’s later years, not stretch them.

The Health Foundation warned in April that years spent in good health have fallen by about two, to just under 61. The row has sharpened after Andy Burnham announced the triple lock will end in its present form after the next election, with the automatic annual link to earnings dropped though the pension is still expected to track longer-term earnings growth. The Daily Express reported the mounting pressure on ministers as Alan Lees of Later Life Ambitions, speaking for more than 250,000 pensioners, called for an end to uncertainty that upends financial planning in a cost-of-living crisis.

Conservatives demand the truth

Conservatives say Labour has effectively banked the early change into spending forecasts and that undoing it would be very hard. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately said Labour refuse to come clean about changes affecting around six million people, have banked billions in savings, and have months to tell the public before another WASPI-style mess. Anyone reaching 68 in 2037 would be entitled to ten years’ notice, with letters needed by April 2027.

Read more: Andy Burnham’s first 100 days leave voters cold and unconvinced

Original source: Daily Express

Have your say below 👇