Extending the required contribution period rather than raising the minimum retirement age: a fairer means of reform?

Raising the statutory retirement age – currently 62 – is the government’s preferred reform option for increasing the effective retirement age and thereby reducing the projected funding gap in the short and medium term. Some, however, put forward another measure – extending the period of service required to qualify for a full pension – as an alternative, or at the very least a complement to raising the pension eligibility age. This measure is often presented by its advocates as fairer, as it would affect more highly qualified people – who entered the labour market later due to their longer periods of study – whilst sparing those with few qualifications who began working at a very early age.
However, this measure is also sometimes portrayed as highly unfair, as it would lead to a reduction in the pensions of those with incomplete careers, and thus further impoverish pensioners who are already in the most precarious situations. How can these two viewpoints be reconciled, and what is the reality of the situation?