A Missed Opportunity: The government’s preparations for an ageing society

House of Lords committees investigate public policy, proposed laws and government activity. Their reports are debated in the House of Lords, provoke discussion outside Parliament and make recommendations to government, who must respond in writing to each report.

In March last year, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee launched an inquiry to investigate the impact of ageing on the UK economy. The report, published nine months later, looked at the opportunities and challenges the government needs to consider given the demographic trends and the policies necessary to adapt to this future and the broader behavioural changes that may be required.

A need for leadership and long-term strategy

One of the most pressing concerns raised by the committee was the absence of clear leadership on ageing within government. As the Committee Chair, Lord Wood of Anfield, noted, even identifying a minister to give evidence proved difficult. The request was passed between three or four different departments, before the Chief Secretary to the Treasury eventually stepped up. This lack of coordination highlights a broader gap. With most departments absorbed by day-to-day delivery, there is no obvious part of government tasked with owning long-term demographic risks and opportunities.  

The committee therefore recommended establishing a Cabinet-level subcommittee on ageing, chaired by the Prime Minister. This mirrors successful models such as the National Science and Technology Council and reflects the cross-government nature of ageing, ensuring it is considered across health, housing, work, pensions, social care and fiscal planning.

In response to this suggestion, the government said only that it has recently set up a new Growth and Living Standards Committee. However, it gives no detail of how its remit aligns with ageing, and no indication it will focus on demographic issues at all.

Similarly, the committee’s call for an overarching ageing strategy was dismissed. The government argues ageing issues are already “embedded” across existing strategies, such as the State Pension age review, and that current Treasury oversight provides sufficient coordination.

Given the repeated findings that ageing policy in the UK lacks coherence, this resistance to strategic co-ordination is disappointing. It suggests a reluctance to confront ageing as a long-term, whole-system challenge.

Older Workers: A restatement of existing policy

Supporting older workers to stay in or return to work is essential, both for individual wellbeing and for economic growth. The committee highlighted that “the “dependency ratio forecast”,  the sum of the young population (under age 15) and elderly population (age 65 and over) relative to the working-age population, was set to increase from 31% to 47% over the next 50 years.

They therefore called for a robust, evidence-based plan focused specifically on ensuring people in their mid-50s to mid-60s could stay in work and economically active.

The government’s response largely reaffirmed existing initiatives: NHS investment to reduce waiting lists, the Keep Britain Working review into health and work, additional time for older workers with work coaches, the Midlife MOT, all-age employment support programmes, skills bootcamps and the forthcoming Lifelong Learning Entitlement.

While these programmes have value, most are not designed with the needs and experiences of older workers in mind. The government has provided no evaluation about which interventions effectively support this age group, nor is there a coordinated approach comparable to the Youth Guarantee for younger people. Without data on the outcomes for older workers, or modelling of expected improvements in economic inactivity, it is difficult to judge whether these initiatives will significantly shift participation rates.

This response reflects a general lack of ambition that the government has shown for this age group. This disinterest is not compatible with the increased expectations being put on people to work for longer, with the state pension age rising to 67 from the start of this month.  

Health: Commitments without specifics

On health, the committee asked the government to set out concrete policies to close the widening gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Latest figures released just last week estimate that women in the poorest areas of the country can expect to spend more than 30 years of their lives in poor health, while it is up to 23 years for men.

The government reiterated its ambition to halve the gap between the richest and poorest and referenced work on its 10-Year Health Plan and to address the social determinants of health. But their reply lacked detail – there are no specific interventions, no timelines, and no assessment of impact.

Tackling Ageism: Scope to do more  

The committee highlighted the growing importance of tackling age discrimination, particularly as older workers form an increasing share of the labour market. It called for further analysis of how prevalent ageism is and how effective the Equality Act has been in addressing it.

The government stated that the existing legislative framework is fit for purpose and did not propose new measures. We disagree. Although the Equality Act prohibits age discrimination, it treats age differently from other protected characteristics by allowing discrimination to be justified in some circumstances. This flexibility makes ageist practices easier to defend and harder to challenge, leaving age discrimination largely unchecked.  

Another parliamentary committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, has echoed this concern, calling for a “wholesale review of age discrimination law” to tackle the UK’s pervasively ageist culture and internalised age discrimination.

Conclusion: Still waiting for a step change

The Lords Economic Affairs Committee offered one of the most thoughtful and comprehensive assessments in recent years of the UK’s preparedness for an ageing society. Its recommendations were clear, practical, and grounded in evidence.

The government’s response acknowledged some challenges but offered limited new thinking or strategic direction. By relying heavily on existing programmes and structures, it risks delaying the systemic, ambitious approach needed to ensure the UK adapts successfully to demographic change.

As a senior Treasury official acknowledged during the inquiry, this is “not a fiscal risk such as a trade war, or a war that could suddenly come and surprise us. We have foresight to this problem and there is time.” And yet, by failing to meaningfully engage with this issue and develop a comprehensive ageing society strategy, the government is slowly but surely spending down that time.  

As the UK’s population continues to age, we need leadership that recognises the scale of the challenge and the opportunity. The government’s lacklustre response to the committee report suggests we are still waiting for it.