Jacob Rees-Mogg today suggested the state pension age should be hiked to 72 as he condemned ministers for backing down on faster increases.
The former Cabinet minister complained that delaying a final decision on accelerating the timetable deprives Brits of ‘the chance to plan’.
And he argued that for the age to reflect improvements in life expectancy since 1940 it would need to be four years higher than the 68 currently being mooted.
The comments came after Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride pointed to ‘uncertainty’ over health prospects as he rebuffed the idea of bringing forward the age increase to 68 to 2037 or even 2035.
In the Commons, he declared that instead the decision would be kicked into the middle of the next parliament – after a general election. Mr Stride told MPs that the current legal timetable of 2044-47 remains in place, although he pointed out that the review by Tory peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe has recommended speeding that up to 2041-43.
Jacob Rees-Mogg complained that delaying a final decision on accelerating the state pension age timetable deprives Brits of ‘the chance to plan’
Bringing the increase in the state pension age to 68 forward to 2035 rather than 2037-39 would have affected around 10million people, according to ONS estimates
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride pointed to ‘uncertainty’ over health prospects as he rebuffed the idea of bringing forward the age increase to 68 to 2037 or even 2035
The Cabinet has been wrangling for months over the state pension rules. A faster trajectory would save the government billions of pounds a year as Chancellor Jeremy Hunt struggles to balance the books.
However, Mr Stride resisted a dramatic shift, and rioting in France over Emmanuel Macron increasing the state retirement age to 64 has focused minds on the potential fallout.
The announcement was broadly endorsed by Tories and Labour in the House.
Read Related Also: Kane Fritzler Bio, Parents, Height, Girlfriend, Survivor 44
But Mr Rees-Mogg told MPs: ‘Unlike the Labour Party I don’t welcome this decision. That life expectancy from retirement from the 1940s to today has increased by seven years, which would indicate a retirement age of 72 rather than of 67 or 68.
‘The benefit of long-term decision-making is that it gives everybody the chance to plan well in advance. And the delaying the decision is a decision in itself, and is not exactly a sign of strength.’
Mr Stride said: ‘There are a number of uncertainties. Some of them, for example, in the fiscal sphere.’
He pointed to a document from the Office for Budget Responsibility which he said referenced ‘the uncertainty of the public finances going forward around labour supply, energy prices, and indeed interest rates’.
‘And for that reason amongst others I believe it is appropriate to wait until we are more certain about what the future holds.’
One government source hit back that Mr Rees-Mogg’s suggestion would ‘make us an international outlier and add some more nails to our electoral coffin’.
The ageing population and rising life expectancy have been pushing up the costs of the state pension for decades
Ministers have dismissed ‘bonkers’ calls for the 68 threshold to be reached by 2035.
That would have affected the retirements of around 10million people currently between 45 and 55.
The previous assessment by ex-CBI chief John Cridland had recommended setting the timeline at the end of the 2030s.
But Mr Stride told MPs that a final decision will not come until the middle of the next parliament, pointing to disruption to data from Covid and the cost-of-living crisis.
He stressed that unless there is an active change in the law to bring the date forward it will stay at the legal level of 2044-47.
Mr Stride said he would ‘take the time to get this right for the longer term’.
