Calls to push the UK State Pension age (SPA) towards 75 have resurfaced as government restarts a formal review and revives a Pensions Commission. The argument goes like this: we’re living longer, the bill is ballooning, so everyone should work longer. It sounds pragmatic but in our opinion it’s a blunt, regressive policy that shifts risk onto those least able to bear it and it breaks faith with millions who have planned around the rules, including those of us who’ve kept paying in from overseas.
A fresh SPA review is underway and heavyweight ‘pension experts’ like Tom McPhail at the Times are, again, floating a mid‑70s eligibility. None of this is close to settled policy but the idea is being normalised by government mouthpieces who won’t be relying on the State Pension when they retire. Before it hardens into a “common sense” default, we need a better plan.
The State Pension is simple on purpose
Contribute across your working life and, from a reasonable age, you’ll get a base income you can actually survive on and plan around. That implicit deal underpins auto‑enrolment, voluntary NI top‑ups and countless family decisions. An SPA lurch to 75 tears up that understanding retroactively and tells savers the rules are fluid whenever the numbers look awkward.
Who loses when you hike SPA this much?
- Lower‑income regions. Life expectancy isn’t uniform. In many poorer areas, men’s life expectancy sits in the early 70s. A universal SPA around 75 guarantees that some contributors die before seeing a penny, and many others start claiming already in ill‑health.
- Manual workers and carers. The people in physically demanding jobs, and those with broken work histories due to unpaid care, are least able to “just work longer”.
- Voluntary contributors abroad. Hundreds of thousands of Brits overseas top up missing years (Class 2/3) on the understanding that each extra year boosts their pension at a predictable age. A near‑decade delay erodes the value they were told to expect and undermines trust in NI as a contract‑like promise.
- Pensioners with “frozen” payments abroad. Most UK pensioners abroad already get no annual uprating, so to ask them also to wait until 75 and you stack one unfairness onto another.
- Health reality. Healthy life expectancy has not snapped back in step with headline longevity. A policy that assumes everyone can work into their mid‑70s ignores long‑term sickness and regional health gaps.
The economics of the situation
Yes, the State Pension bill is rising.
Yes, the triple lock can produce volatile, expensive uprating (except for most Brits abroad).
But a blanket age hike is a crude lever that saves most from those with shorter lives and lower incomes while protecting those who live longer and earn more. We saw what happened at SPA 66: poverty among near‑retirees rose, especially for single people, because the safety nets didn’t bridge the gap. Why repeat that with an even harsher setting?
A better policy proposal
- Smooth or replace the triple lock. Move to a clear earnings‑linked rule or a smoothed formula that avoids one‑off spikes. Predictability matters for households and the public finances.
- Grandfathering and notice. Lock SPA for anyone within 10–15 years of today’s age and give everyone a formal SPA projection around age 50. Policy stability is essential in maintaining trust in institutions. We know the impact when the public stop trusting them.
- Protect those with shorter working lives. If SPA ever moves, build in early‑access routes (without harsh penalties) for people in poor health, long service in manual work, or on low lifetime earnings.
- Rebalance reliefs at the top. Tighten overly generous corners of pension tax relief and review NIC rules after SPA for high earners who choose to work on.
- Invest in over‑50s employability and health. Fix the NHS, provide flexible work and rapid treatment pathways so people can work longer if they want to, not because they’re forced to.
- Fix the overseas anomalies. Frozen‑pension rules and clunky cross‑border admin make many British retirees abroad second‑class. Modernise reciprocal agreements and digitise claims so contributors aren’t penalised for geography.
What the new Pensions Minister signalled, and why it matters for SPA
On 23 April 2025, in a Commons debate on “integrated” defined-benefit schemes, the new Pensions Minister Torsten Bell set a clear marker on trust and non-retroactivity. His line: “we cannot retrospectively change the benefits schemes offered to their members.” That was about private DB rules, but the principle is bigger. People plan around pension promises; moving the finish line after the fact breaks the pact. Apply the same logic to the State Pension: don’t shove eligibility into the mid-70s for those who have already planned and paid in (including voluntary NI top-ups from overseas).
Bell also leaned heavily on clear communications and redress (internal dispute procedures, Pensions Ombudsman) and acknowledged the distributional reality: women and lower earners are hit harder by opaque rules and poor information. That bodes well for any SPA change, which must be predictable, clearly communicated years in advance, and shield those that are affected most.
DB surpluses are the real lever, not pushing SPA towards 75
If ministers want room to manoeuvre, there’s a better tool than a blanket SPA hike: the emerging DB surplus framework. Most DB schemes are now in surplus. The Government’s own line is “up to £160 billion” across the market. The Pension Schemes Bill 2024–25 and the Government’s response to “Options for DB Schemes” would let trustees (with safeguards) share surplus and consider discretionary increases for members — i.e., relieve pressure without moving SPA.
The Pensions Regulator’s analysis suggests roughly 75% of schemes sat in surplus (low-dependency basis) at end-Sep 2024, which is why the policy focus has shifted to when and how surpluses might be used: a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Critics warn against treating schemes as “piggybanks,” so guardrails matter; but the point stands: if there’s a fiscal/adequacy squeeze, surplus policy and uprating reform are the right levers, not forcing everyone to work into their mid-70s.
A deal for expats – honour our voluntary contributions
Expats have been told, explicitly, to check their NI record and top up missing years to secure a full State Pension. Many have done exactly that, quickly, and at personal cost. Any SPA change must honour the value of those contributions. If ministers insist on shifting SPA at all, they should:
- Guarantee that already‑purchased voluntary years retain their expected value at today’s SPA.
- Offer credits or rebates where a later SPA materially reduces the expected return on recent top‑ups.
- Publish a dedicated expat impact note for any change, covering frozen pensions, claiming from abroad, and cross‑border banking.
What to monitor, and what to do (UK & overseas)
- Get advice about your State Pension and keep up to date with proposed changes.
- Prioritise the right top‑ups: If you’re missing years, understand the differences in costs between class 2 and class 3 contributions.
- Scenario‑plan: Model your retirement budget at current SPA, and at +2 and +5 years, so you aren’t blindsided by media opinion turning into government policy.
- Diversify: don’t rely solely on the State Pension. Build Personal Pension buffers where possible.
- If overseas: keep address/bank details current, and make sure you know how to claim from abroad promptly close to State Pension age.
- Pensions Commission (revived): announced 21 July 2025 to tackle savings adequacy; final recommendations due later in the Parliament. Watch for proposals on contribution rates, consolidation, guidance/advice, and uprating rules.
- Third State Pension age review: launched 21 July 2025 with an independent report (Dr Suzy Morrissey) and a GAD assessment of life expectancy. Call for evidence is open now – the current law still says SPA rises to 67 (2026–28) and 68 (2044–46).
The bottom line
Raising the State Pension age to 75 is a breach of trust that lands hardest on those with the least runway left: the ill, the poor, manual workers, carers, and Brits who kept faith with the system by being automatically enrolled or topping up voluntarily. The UK needs a sustainable pension settlement but sustainability should be built on predictability and fairness.
Keep universality. Fix uprating. Protect near‑retirees. Honour voluntary contributors. That’s a settlement people can plan around and support while maintaining trust in the government.
Need help? Contact us to get advice.