Committee publication · Report · 11 July 2026 · HC 76

2nd Report - Transition to State Pension Age

Inquiry: Transition to State Pension age

Government response deadline: 11 September 2026

Summary

The Work and Pensions Committee examines the transition to State Pension age as it increases from 66 to 67 between April 2026 and 2028. The report finds that this increase will cause uneven harm, particularly affecting low-income people in deprived areas with work-limiting health conditions, many of whom will spend extended periods on inadequate working-age benefits before reaching pension age. The committee criticizes the government for not updating impact assessments since 2011-13 and recommends increased Universal Credit support during the transition year, costing £600 million annually against savings of £10.5 billion.

Key findings

Over 57% of people stop working in the year before pension age, with poor people leaving work for health reasons while richer people retire by choice
The previous increase from 65 to 66 caused income poverty rates among 65-year-olds to more than double; the 2026-28 increase to 67 is feared to have even greater impact
Healthy life expectancy has fallen to its lowest since 2011-13, with regional inequalities widening: 70 years in Richmond upon Thames versus 51 years in Blackpool and Hartlepool
Around 31% of people aged 60-64 report work-limiting health conditions in 2024, up from 28% in 2014; half of the poorest 20% aged 60-66 are already classed as frail
Government rejected the committee's 2025 recommendation for updated impact assessment, relying on 2011-13 assessments; no evaluation of the increase to 67 is planned until 2028, too late to inform mitigations

Recommendations

The government must increase Universal Credit in the year before State Pension age and consult on implementation by end of 2026, costing £600 million annually
Government should conduct deeper analysis of health impacts on those compelled to leave work before pension age due to ill-health or disability, with evidence base and cost-benefit analysis of options
Secretary of State must consult on transition support options as part of the State Pension age review due March 2029, accounting for downstream impacts on health and social care services
Government must improve State Pension age impact assessments to reflect: (i) range of outcomes for pre-pensioners and expected impacts; and (ii) downstream impact on demand for health and social care services
Government must demonstrate commitment to learning from past errors through effective implementation, evaluation and monitoring of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman action plan on State Pension age communication failures to 1950s women
Government must work towards a sufficiently clear adequacy objective to guide future decisions on State Pensions, explicitly stating whether avoiding poverty but not delivering adequacy represents the extent of its ambitions

Tone

Critical

Topics

state-pensionpublic-financesocial-securityhealth-inequalitiesemployment

Key actors

Debbie Abrahams (Chair, Work and Pensions Committee), Torsten Bell (Minister for Pensions), Dr Suzy Morrissey (Independent reviewer of State Pension age), Baroness Jeannie Drake (Second Pensions Commission), Sir Ian Cheshire (Second Pensions Commission), Professor Nick Pearce (Second Pensions Commission), Chris Curry (Pensions Policy Institute), Jonathan Cribb (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

Notable line

“Without it, the longer wait for their State Pension will harm 66-year-olds unable to keep working till 67. The government must not just allow that to happen.”

Key Quotes

“The failure to act on 2 our recommendation for a fresh assessment by the end of 2025, has left a significant gap in the government's understanding of the impact of the increase to”
— Work and Pensions Committee · Criticizing government delay in updating impact assessments

“Over half (57%) are no longer in paid work in the year before pension age. For many in the most deprived areas—particularly those with caring responsibilities, disability or work- limiting health conditions—the rise in pension age means an extended period on working-age benefits …”
— Work and Pensions Committee · Describing the impact of State Pension age increase on vulnerable groups

“An opportunity to inform mitigations has been missed. When we asked the Minister for Pensions about the government's plans, he stressed the importance of supporting later working.”
— Work and Pensions Committee · On the government's focus on employment support as insufficient for those unable to work

“We heard an increase in the level of Universal Credit in the year before State Pension age would cost £600 million a year, a small proportion of the significant savings—£10.5 billion a year once the State Pension age is 67 …”
— Work and Pensions Committee · Proposing mitigation measure costs relative to State Pension age savings

“"overwhelmingly, poor people are exiting work before the SPA for health reasons and richer people […] for wealth reasons"—retiring because they can.”
— Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell MP) · Explaining differential employment exit patterns by socioeconomic status

“This is too late. The failure to act on 2 our recommendation for a fresh assessment by the end of 2025, has left a significant gap in the government's understanding of the impact of the increase to”
— Work and Pensions Committee · On planned evaluation delayed until 2028

“The last rise—from 65 to 66, between late 2018 and 2020— caused the income poverty rate among 65-year-olds to more than double.”
— Work and Pensions Committee · Evidence of impact from previous State Pension age increase

View original document →

Source · parliament.uk record ↗