Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee
Recommendation 42
2nd Report - Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations
Published 24 Jul 2025
Addressed to Department for Work and Pensions
Work and Pensions Committee Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
By the end of 2025, the Government must produce an impact assessment of the forthcoming increase in the State Pension age from 66 to 67. This should consider the cumulative impact of policies and set out the impact on pre-pensioner and pensioner poverty, by income decile and protected characteristic. It also should explain what measures the Government has considered to mitigate the impact, which it has accepted or rejected, and the reasons for this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 192)
From: Work and Pensions Committee, 2nd Report - Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations (HC 465), 24 July 2025
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 10 November 2025 (deadline 24 September 2025).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government's response commits to monitoring the gender pensions gap and to data-sharing reports to the Committee, but declines to monitor local authorities on benefit take-up or to change mixed-age couple conditionality.
- On the gender pensions gap, the government is "committed to monitoring" it and will "continue to seek to monitor and publish every 2 years", as the underlying survey data allow.
- On an Older People's Commissioner for England, the government says it "will consider" the experience and effectiveness of the Commissioner in Wales to inform its "future thinking in England".
- The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero "will write to the Committee by the end of 2025" with an assessment of the legislative changes needed to enable data sharing for bill support.
- On a Pension Credit taper, the government argues a taper "would introduce far greater complexity into the benefit". On mixed-age couples, it states there "are no plans to change or explore" the current requirement.