When will we get the proposals for the future of the state pension? Can you believe that it is so important to electors? Can anything to do with “pensions” be so important?
I think David Robbins is right – see what you think. This is his tweet.
The third periodic review of State Pension Age is in progress. At both of the previous reviews, the Prime Minister (who must in practice sign off the resulting policy) changed while the review was underway.
5 March, Dr Suzy Morrissey told the TUC pensions conference that her…
— David Robbins (@David_J_Robbins) June 4, 2026
You want to see that whole tweet? Well here it is
David Robbins
@David_J_RobbinsThe third periodic review of State Pension Age is in progress. At both of the previous reviews, the Prime Minister (who must in practice sign off the resulting policy) changed while the review was underway.
5 March, Dr Suzy Morrissey told the TUC pensions conference that her report to inform the review would be published in the Spring, and that this would be true using a normal person’s definition of ‘Spring’.
It was not clear whether the plan was for the Government’s response (and the GAD report, which also feeds into the review) to be published at the same time. Precedents are mixed – in 2023, all documents were published together; in 2017, the independent reviewer’s report came first.
It seems unlikely that anything will be published before the Makerfield by-election, especially if there is a proposal to raise SPA – HMT will not want Andy Burnham to feel under pressure to rule that out. For similar reasons, it might wait until after a Labour leadership election.
1:43 PM · Jun 4, 2026
What happens to our state pension is important enough to matter to prime ministers, what happens to our savings is a matter for our pensions minister.
This may sound bizarre but David Robbins is right. Decisions made about the pension that the state pays to us for the rest of our lives (and our spouses if they outlast us) matter. We worry about when we start getting them, we worry about how they increase each year and we fret that future generations who aren’t anywhere near 67, will never get the deal that pensioners get today.
Private sector workplace and personal pensions do not get the prominence in Westminster or around the country as the State Pension, this is a shame for the pensions industry, but hardly surprising, there are questions of trust here – trust of the market and of those who run private pensions. As a nation we have a higher trust in the Treasury and Work and Pensions than we do of those who run our private pensions
Our estimate of the future is decidedly pessimistic. The estimate is passed to us by the media who are briefed by so called pension experts. We are told that in future the state pension might be means-tested (as it is in Australia) or it might lag the increase in the cost of living (as it did under Mrs Thatcher and our successors who believed pensions should be personal).
The recommendations in Dr Suzy Morrissey which we should have had by now , may be grim or may encourage more spend on pensions.
We will see. I would like to think that we can be perky, as our Pension Ministers urges us to be.
I suspect that there are those within the pensions industry who are Thatcherite on this and would like us to rely on a kind of personal pension. They are not very perky about the state pension.
Whatever the recommendation, we will have the triple lock until the end of this parliament and I for one am happy about that. Dr Suzy Morrissey is reporting independently of the Pension Commission but I suspect that Government will consider both together.
As someone who believes in better pensions I hope that the thinking of Dr Morrissey and of the HMT and DWP is positive.