Millions of people will face an extra year in work under the plans, as the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) indicates<\/a> that the \u201ccurrent policy\u201d is to move the rise from 2044 to 2037.<\/p>\n In its latest report on the nation\u2019s spending, the OBR states that the Treasury has confirmed the decision, despite the planned rise not being in legislation.<\/p>\n Under the Pensions Act 2007, the notional policy remains for the state pension age <\/a>to rise to 68 from 2044 to 2046. This remains the official guidance for current workers.<\/p>\n But the change means that around five million people who are currently aged between 49 and 55 would have to work for an extra year before being eligible for their state pension.<\/p>\n At its currently yearly rate, this would cost them \u00a312,500.<\/p>\n The OBR<\/a> report said: \u201cWe assume that the state pension<\/a> rises to 68 in 2037-39, and then to 69 in the 2070s.\u201d<\/p>\n It adds that, if the government<\/a> were to follow the legislated 2044 plan, it would cost \u201can average additional \u00a36 billion in today\u2019s terms in each of the years the state pension age rise is delayed.\u201d<\/p>\n A new review of the state pension aged was launched by Labour last year under the legal requirement that one must be carried out every six years. It is being led by Dr Suzy Morrissey, deputy director of the Pensions<\/a> Policy Institute, and the Government Actuary\u2019s Department.<\/p>\n However, the recommendation for the state pension age to rise to 68 from 2037 dates back to the first such review, released in 2017, which was triggered by then-prime minister Theresa May.<\/p>\n Any change to the state pension age must come with at least 10 years\u2019 notice, meaning a planned rise to 2037 must start to be legislated on by next year at the latest.<\/p>\n Pensions minister Torsten Bell has previously said that the government had not made a final decision on the state pension age increase to 68.<\/p>\n Asked about the issue by the Work and Pensions Committee in March, he said: \u201cWe want to make sure that we have a sustainable state pension for the longer term, because one of the most worrying things, if you look at the data at the moment, is the reduction in trust in the pension system.<\/p>\n \u201cFairness is a very central part of why the state pension exists, and the design features of the state pension show that that is also something of cross-party consensus.\u201d<\/p>\n Economist Paul Johnson, the former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commented: \u201cCurrent legislation is that the pension age will not rise until the mid-2040s. If it is the government\u2019s firm intention that it should rise sooner than that, they need to say so publicly and get on with legislation \u2014 and fast. People need certainty and, ideally, at least a decade\u2019s notice.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is, however, the right thing to do. For many decades the retirement age has not kept pace with increasing life expectancy and these reasonably modest changes to the pension age will help the government\u2019s long-term fiscal position. However, the government will also have to look at other areas like the triple lock to ensure that state pension is sustainable in the longer term,\u201d he told The Times.<\/p>\n![\"Pensions](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/3158e2a55530f11794611f7b13c8be7dY29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNzczOTM4MjY3-2.81057745.jpg\")
Pensions minister Torsten Bell said in March: \u2018We want to make sure that we have a sustainable state pension for the longer term\u2019 (PA Archive)<\/p>\n