A terminal illness diagnosis brings with it an immense personal and emotional burden. For many people, it also brings significant financial pressure. At a time when individuals may be unable to work and could be facing mounting care costs, access to accumulated pension savings ought to be a straightforward matter. In practice, however, the rules governing early access to private pension savings for terminally ill individuals have been widely criticised as outdated, inconsistent, and poorly aligned with modern clinical realities.
Under current HMRC rules, individuals with a life expectancy of less than 12 months may take what is known as a Serious Ill Health Lump Sum from their private pension, subject to satisfying both HMRC requirements and the rules of their individual scheme. For those under 75, this sum can be paid tax-free up to the lump sum and death benefit allowance (currently £1,073,000), with any excess taxed as income. While the mechanism may appear flexible at first glance, the practical position is considerably more complex.
The problem with the current framework
The rules were designed at a time when a terminal diagnosis commonly meant death within a matter of months. Medicine has moved on considerably. For cancer alone, approximately half of patients now survive 10 years or more, compared with just one in four in the 1970s. A growing number of people are living with terminal diagnoses for many years, yet remain ineligible to access their pension savings early because they cannot satisfy the 12-month life expectancy threshold.
Even for those who do fall within the 12-month window, access is far from guaranteed. Private pension schemes retain their own eligibility requirements, meaning that individuals face varying and often inconsistent hurdles depending on which scheme they belong to. There is no uniform standard, and navigating multiple sets of requirements at a time of acute personal crisis places a significant burden on individuals and their families.
A further source of friction is definitional inconsistency. The definition of terminal illness used in pension regulations has not kept pace with the broader definition used by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
for benefits purposes. Unlike HMRC, the DWP approach does not depend on prognosis, but instead takes into account the nature of the condition itself, such as whether it is metastatic or degenerative. This misalignment means that a person who qualifies for fast-tracked benefits under the DWP's Special Rules for End of Life may nonetheless be unable to access their own pension savings under a different, narrower definition.
Parliamentary debate and government commitment to review
The issue was raised in the House of Lords on 30 June 2026, when Baroness Martin of Brockley questioned the Government on what assessment had been made of the impact of current private pension access rules on the financial security of working-age people living with a terminal diagnosis. The question was posed in the context of the Government's ongoing pensions review.
Treasury minister Lord Livermore acknowledged the problem directly, confirming that the current definition of terminal illness for pension access purposes is "clearly outdated" and does not align with wider legislation, including the DWP's standard definition. He recognised that the permissive nature of the rules results in individuals encountering different barriers depending on their scheme, and confirmed that the Government will now review the position in further detail. He indicated that the Government would examine access options across individual private pension schemes and consider what changes may be needed, including the possibility of introducing a single, standardised definition aligned with that used by the DWP.
These comments follow reforms under the Pension Schemes Act, which have already raised the life expectancy threshold for terminal ill health payments from six months to 12 months in Government-backed fallback pension schemes such as the Pension Protection Fund, bringing those schemes into line with DWP rules.
What does this mean in practice?
The Government's commitment to review is welcome, but the detail of any reform will be critical. Key questions will include: whether the 12-month threshold itself is sufficient, or whether a more flexible, clinically-led approach is needed; how to address the inconsistency across individual private scheme rules; and whether a single standardised definition of terminal illness can be implemented across pensions regulations, benefits, and healthcare frameworks alike.
For trustees and scheme managers, it will be important to monitor developments closely. Any regulatory changes are likely to require amendments to scheme rules and internal processes for assessing and evidencing terminal illness claims. Schemes that have not recently reviewed their terminal illness provisions should consider doing so in anticipation of reform.
Looking ahead
The Government's acknowledgement that the current rules are outdated and its commitment to review represent a meaningful step forward. Whether that review translates into substantive, workable reform will depend on the Government's willingness to engage with the full complexity of the issue.
We will continue to monitor developments as the review progresses. If you would like to discuss anything raised in this blog, please get in touch with a member of the Brodies pensions team or your usual Brodies contact.
Contributors
Partner
Solicitor
