The trade union movement has been quick to condemn John Cridland's proposed changes to the state pension, saying they would hit the poor and sick the hardest.
In his final report, released today (23 March), Mr Cridland called for the increase to the state pension age to be lifted to 68 by 2039, and for the triple lock on pension increases to be abolished.
Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, opposed both measures.
"Hiking up the state pension age will hit low paid workers the hardest. And it will punish those who become too sick to work," she said.
"Ending the triple lock while driving up state pension age would be a stealth cut to the future incomes of workers who are today in their 30s and 40s."
She said there was a 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest.
"These changes risk only the wealthy enjoying a decent retirement."
Former pensions minister Sir Steve Webb, meanwhile, warned the government against implementing the Government Actuary's timetable for state pension age increases, saying if it did so it would be "guilty of misleading Parliament".
According to one of the Government Actuary's two potential timetables, individuals born from 1986 would not receive the state pension until age 70.
"In the last parliament MPs voted for the new arrangements on state pension age increases on the basis that people would spend two years in work for every one year in retirement," Sir Steve said.
"On this basis, no one at work today would have a pension age of 70. But on the more aggressive schedule that the government is considering, everyone in their twenties would have a pension age of 70.
"This is not what Parliament voted for and is clearly driven by the Treasury. It is one thing asking people to work longer to make pensions affordable, but it is another to hike up pension ages because the Treasury sees it as an easy way to raise money," he said.
Commenting on the Cridland Review call for the triple lock to be abolished, Sir Steve said, while it could not continue indefinitely, "it would be right to review the policy at the start of each parliament rather than abolish it now".
"Many people retiring in years to come will have very modest private pensions and the state pension will be of vital importance to them. We should be careful not to base policy for decades in the future on the basis of the incomes of people retiring now," he said.
Baroness Ros Altmann, former pensions minister, welcomed Mr Cridland's recommendation to scrap the triple lock.
However, she expressed disappointment that he had decided against recommending the government allow early access to the state pension.
"People with shorter than average life expectancy generally still pay around a quarter of their salary in National Insurance," she said.
"They may have worked for 50 years or more but may die before being eligible for any state pension - or may receive very little. This seems inequitable and their lower life expectancy is not recognised by our National Insurance rules.
"Normal insurance would usually charge lower premiums to such people but that does not happen. Therefore allowing early access could compensate for this even if for a reduced pension," she said.
Tom Selby, senior analyst at AJ Bell, acknowledged the changes "may seem harsh", but added the reality is that – without reform – spending on the state pension will increase.
Mr Selby said: "As life expectancy continues to march ever higher, it was inevitable the government would eventually look to take a grip on state pension spending."
Anna Dixon, chief executive of the Centre for Ageing Better, welcomed the measures proposed by Mr Cridland that would mitigate some of the negative effects of an increase in the state pension age.
However, she said more needed to be done make workplaces and employment practices "more age friendly".
"This means recognising the contribution that older workers make, treating them fairly, especially when it comes to opportunities for development and progression, and tackling all forms of ageism and discrimination in the workplace," she said.
"We know that people aged 50 and over are more likely to have caring responsibilities and/or health conditions.
"We welcome the recommendation for statutory carers leave. Flexible working arrangements that allow people to balance health, care and work are essential."
The Department for Work and Pensions will publish its response to the two reports in May.
james.fernyhough@ft.com
