The prospect of working longer is a subject to spark debate.

There are those who will relish retiring later – many people feel they’re not ready to retire in their early 60s and have more to offer within their workforce, while for others retirement cannot come soon enough.

Some may be fortunate enough to be able to afford to retire early, but a planned retirement age increase, disclosed in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, could mean people in their 40s facing the prospect of working longer and taking their pensions later than they had hoped.

This will mean people now in their 40s will have to wait until they are 68 to receive the state pension if the retirement age is brought forward from 2046 to the mid-2030s. According to the Government, a further rise in the state pension to 69 is expected to take place by the late 2040s, affecting people now in their early 30s.

Longer life expectancy places a greater demand on the pension pot. Over the last 100 years the number of people living beyond age 65 has almost doubled, with life expectancy rising by just over ten years for both men and women.

In 1952 a man reaching state pension age spent around 21 per cent of his adult life in receipt of state pension. This had risen to roughly 24 per cent by 1980, 30 per cent by 2000 and 32 per cent by 2010.

The delayed retirement dates will help save around £400 billion from the national bill for pensions, on top of the £100 billion-plus already banked from planned rises to 66 in 2020 and 67 by 2028, which are unchanged.

The Government said future changes in the pension age will be based on the principle that workers should expect to spend about one-third of their adult lives, on average, in retirement.

Sources said the formula – which will be applied in a pension age review mechanism to be held every five years – should ensure that the country is able to offer ‘decent and affordable’ pensions to people in their old age while maintaining ‘fairness across the generations’.

“As a result of the announcement, people in different generations can expect to spend broadly the same proportion of their lives contributing to, and receiving, the state pension,” a Government source said in a statement.

The formula will be applied for the first time in a review shortly after the 2015 general election to fix the dates of the increases to 68 – likely to be brought forward from 2046 to the mid-2030s – and 69, which is expected to take place by the late 2040s.

Jane Vincent, managing director of Candelisa recruitment agency based in North Parade, Bradford, says she believes people should be able to choose whether they retire at 65 or carry on to 68 or 69.

“I think it is frustrating, but it is the way of the world. We are living longer so I suppose that is the method in the madness. People are living longer so they can retire later and take their pensions later.”

Jane says they had a receptionist who was in her 80s and keen to carry on working despite her advancing years, but she believes there should be flexibility to enable those who want to retire at 65 to do so.

Kath Parry, commercial director of MC Logistics in Low Moor, also believes people should be given a choice.

“Based on the fact that we have got to contribute to pensions for all employees we are a small family-owned company not a conglomerate. Every penny counts,” says Kath.

“Everyone is entitled to a pension, but why has the Government shunted the responsibility on to the employer? National Insurance contributions are for pensions and the NHS, but the Government is reversing responsibility on to Joe Public, and employers are Joe Public too.”