THE official response to an independent review which recommended raising the state pension age of millions of voters has been put on hold until after the General Election.
Former CBI director-general John Cridland was appointed as the Government’s independent reviewer of the state pension age last year and recommended that it should increase from 67 to 68 between 2037 and 2039.
But the responsibility for responding to his report has been passed on to whoever wins the June 8 election, in a move which Labour said would worry voters given Theresa May’s refusal to commit to maintaining the pensions triple-lock.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “This is a crucial issue for the long-term management of both the public finances and the savings of individuals.
“Therefore it is important that policy is made by a government with the power to act on that policy, which will now be the government formed after the General Election.
“The delay incurred in waiting to publish the report will have no detrimental impact on the public.”
Pension experts said if the Cridland recommendations are taken up, people in their 40s face their state pension age being pushed back a year.
They warned those in their 30s and younger may eventually face the possibility of drawing their pension at 70.
The review also recommended the triple-lock, which guarantees the state pension increases annually by the highest measure out of average wages, inflation or 2.5 per cent, is withdrawn in the next Parliament.
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: “The Government have refused to set out their plans for the state pension age before the election, despite the legal requirement to report to Parliament before May 7.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel