HC Deb 05 February 1954 vol 523 cc771-93

2.50 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

I beg to move. That this House welcomes the First Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, and urges Her Majesty's Government to give every encouragement to both employers and workpeople wishing to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. This Motion welcomes the first Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women. That Committee was set up in March, 1952, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. The Committee reported in October of last year, and I am sure the House would like to pay tribute to all those who took part in its discussions. There were 28 members presided over, first, by Lord Bennett and now by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The members of the Committee were selected from all sections of the community: the Trades Union Congress, the National Council of Social Service, the National Old People's Welfare Committee, the British Employers' Confederation and a number of experts from the Ministries of Health and Labour.

The Committee gave serious consideration to the question of promoting the employment of older men and women. I want to make it clear that the Committee, as the name implies, is entirely advisory; it is a body set up to advise and assist the Minister to assess the problem and to make recommendations. Today we are particularly concerned with promoting the employment of all who are able to play a useful part in our national economy, and with a policy of full employment they need have no fear that there will not be something for them to do.

Although I have every sympathy with the many problems confronting old age pensioners at the present time, I am not concerned with them today. That matter is already in hand, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set up a Committee whose terms of reference are To review the economic and financial problems involved in providing for Old Age having regard to the prospective increase in the number of the aged. I know we shall all look forward to the report of the Committee, which is working now.

The problem with which we are confronted today is the higher concentration of our population in the older age groups. This was brought out most forcibly by the Royal Commission on Population, which made its Report in 1949. The reasons for this change in the structure of our population are the higher standard of living now existing, the general improvement in health, the improvement, in the medical services, the other factors involved in the Welfare State, and the change in the pattern of family life. Perhaps one important factor is the smaller families that we have today. In my own case my great-great-grandfather had 16 children, my grandfather had five and I have one.

The Report on population shows that, in 1900, out of every 100 members of the population 10 were over the pensionable age of 65 for men and 60 for women. This year, 1954, the figure is 20 in every 100, and in 1977 it will be 30 in every 100. Another way of looking at this is that in 1911 one in every 15 of the population was above those ages, in 1951 the figure is two in every 15, and by 1977 three out of every 15 will be above the pensionable age. Our population in that category now is approximately 6½ million people, but by 1977 it will be nearer 10 million.

The figures today mean that out of every 100 members of the population 87 workers are having to resign themselves to keeping in idleness 13 of their fellow citizens, that is, those who are over pensionable age. I do not suggest for a moment that these people spend their lives in idleness. A number remain in employment, others do useful voluntary work which they have been looking forward to doing all their lives. Nevertheless, we still get down to the figure of every six or seven workers today maintaining out of their present production one member of the community.

These people who have earned their pensions and retirement are therefore dependent upon those who are in work to provide goods and services which those pensions are intended to buy. It is not possible for those who retire to have stored up these things during their working life, and therefore it is the coming generations who have to produce the goods on which the pensions are spent. So we now have to adjust our economy to these changing figures which I have outlined to the House and which were so forcibly brought out in the Report of the Committee.

The Committee pointed out that the scientific and medical members assured them that there were no medical reasons why the customary age of retirement should be 65 and 60. The actual statement in the Report was: We have no evidence for any assumption that the minimum Pensionable Ages under the National Insurance Scheme, and many Employers Pension Schemes, are the ages at which most people cease to be able to give effective service. In my own constituency I have many examples of people in these age groups who are still in employment and performing a useful service in the production drive of the country. I would mention particularly Mr. E. Pollard of Barnoldswick, who is 81 years old and a weaver, who is now operating four looms for a 44-hour week. He tells me that he has been in the textile industry for the last 71 years. I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Pollard at Christmas time and, from his spritely appearance, he did not look as though he had yet qualified for the old age pension, although he is 81.

I have another constituent of 81, Mr. W. T. Walker, of Bradley, who is a warp dresser in a textile mill. Anyone who knows anything about the textile industry will realise what a responsible position that is and how the production of the weavers depends on the skill with which the warp dresser does his job. In this case they are glad to have their warps dressed by someone who is 81 years of age. I must not leave out the ladies. I have another constituent, Mrs. Janet Wright, of Connonley, still working as a burler at the age of 70.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

The hon. Member is giving an interesting catalogue of constituents. Are we to judge that they are normally supporters of our party and that he is canvassing for their votes? If so, I imagine that he will get the right sort of reply.

Mr. Drayson

I am sorry that the hon. Member should seek to introduce that note into the discussion. I thought it right, as we were discussing the matter, that I should pay tribute to those three workers who, everyone will agree, have served the community well for upwards of 70 years in helping the national economy. I have a much longer list of those over 70 who are happily working in the mills and other occupations in my constituency. When I have met these workers on the job or outside, I have always noted what a happy disposition they have. I wonder whether it is because they work that they are happy, or that they work because they are of a happy disposition.

The textile industry, as hon. Members will know, has a very high percentage of employment of older persons—the highest in the country. Possibly one explanation is that it is difficult to get younger recruits for the industry, but they certainly set an example to some professions which stick rigidly to retirement ages. Those retirements are often linked to inflexible pension schemes. That is something with which the Report deals very extensively. I believe that already some insurance companies have been prepared to modify the requirements of some of their schemes.

There are difficulties where the older people have become unemployed through misfortune and have difficulty in finding re-employment. I have here a very excellent pamphlet sent to me by the Over 45s'Association. I should like to commend the work they are doing. I am sure they should have as a new recruit the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), who has been complaining that the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers are asking him to retire at 65 years of age. He asked them to abolish what he terms their senseless rule.

The Report deals with ways in which both sides of industry can overcome these problems. Some suggest that there should be legislation, but I am not at all in favour of that at this stage. I am not one who thinks that all ills can be cured by Bills. That is a conception which we sometimes associate with hon. Members opposite and many people in the country—that if there is a problem, economic or otherwise, confronting the nation, we can solve it by passing an Act. I am beginning to think that we have had far too many Acts during the last few years and that it is time we got down quietly and soberly to considering some of the problems that confront us and working out a solution on a joint basis, as we are trying to do, employers and employees, with this problem of our ageing population.

I do not like the idea of compulsion. It is suggested, for example, that there might be an Act on the same lines as the Disabled Persons Act which compels employers of more than 200 people to employ at least 3 per cent. of disabled persons. I would certainly not put the older people of our population within such a provision. I think that, when the Government are framing legislation or when the Chancellor is considering his Budget, they should not do anything which would discourage people from remaining in work when they have reached pensionable age. They should not penalise them or detract from the pension they have rightly earned, but should give them every encouragement to go on increasing their earnings so that, in their old age, they can enjoy more of the amenities of life.

There are one or two other smaller aspects. I find that people who are still working after pensionable age feel that they are just as much entitled to concessions in the purchase of cigarettes and tobacco as those who are not working.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

If they are over 70 they can have that concession, but if they are under 70 and go to work they augment their pension.

Mr. Drayson

I am sure that they understand that, but they feel this when they are buying their cigarettes and tobacco, because they consider that they are doing a good job by staying in work and yet see others receiving the concession. I find that very often the small, comparatively irrelevant things weigh more heavily in their minds than some of the major aspects of this problem, because they come across the small things daily and weekly. The Report suggests that the over 60's should be prepared to accept employment at a lower level or grade on their retirement. I am reminded of the Home Guard where during the war bemedalled major-generals and brigadiers were prepared to serve as subalterns and privates.

I think that we can say now that we have in the veterans of industry the new V.I.Ps.—the Veterans of Industry Panel—who, I am sure, would take these jobs on willingly. The older workers possess many advantages of which employers are becoming increasingly aware—in timekeeping, in the jobs which require judgment or skill or precision and an element of greater responsibility, and where they can often pass on skill or knowledge to younger generations. It should be appreciated also that these people are less prone to accidents. Figures given under the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act bear out the fact that the accident rate is twice as high among men below 30 as it is among men over 60.

There are a number of committees throughout the country which are organised to assist people in these age groups in their neighbourhood. I am glad to say that in Skipton we have an energetic committee on the employment of older men and women, which is fortunate in having as its chairman Mr. E. Lloyd Rolfe, who has an international reputation in the world of Rotary. The committee is assisted by the Minister's local representative, Mr. Whalley, as its secretary, and it is doing very good work. Its members are fortified in their work by this Report from the Committee appointed by the Minister, which states: We therefore strongly recommended that every effort should be bade to remove from the minds of both Employers and Employees that at any particular age retirement should be either compulsory or expected. In commending this Motion to the House, I should like to say that I am sure that this Report has done much to bring to the notice of all this pressing national problem of our aged population. Once the problem is fully understood, its solution will not be so difficult. Already much has been done, and I urge the Minister to take all the action that is in his power to implement the recommendations of the Report.

3.10 p.m

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)

I beg to second the Motion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) on his speech and on his choice of subject, and if I cut my congratulations short to him and to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee whose Report we are discussing today, it is because I want to allow time for other hon. Members to speak, and to set an example of brevity to our predecessors in criminology.

I take a little credit to myself for this Report, and perhaps I may be allowed a little toot on my own trumpet, because I have been interested in this subject for a long time. It has been a hobbyhorse of mine. On reading the debate which took place on this subject in 1951. I found that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up on this subject and that I suggested that the Ministry should start a standing committee. No attention was paid at the time to those suggestions, but later we had a change of Government. Within a few months, my right hon. and learned Friend had merged Epsom and Reigate—if I may put it in that way—and appointed this standing Advisory Committee whose Report we are discussing today.

Mr. FrederickLee (Newton)

Would the hon. Gentleman ask the Parliamentary Secretary during the debate whether the arrangements for this Committee were conceived before the change of Government or not?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

They may have been conceived before the change of Government, but I want to know whether they were conceived before my right hon. Friend and I made our speeches. I insist upon claiming a share of credit, in spite of the hon. Member who asked me the question.

When I first saw the appointment of the Committee I was afraid that it would be a little too distinguished and too large to do any constructive work. I am glad that I have been disappointed. I welcome not only the Report but, what is more important, the publicity it has created. The reception of the Report is a matter for great congratulation to the Committee and to the Ministry of Labour. Public relations officers are often criticised, but in the case of the Ministry of Labour the fact that the whole national Press seems to have been seized of the urgency of this problem has done more to get the difficulty of the problem over to the public mind than anything else.

What is needed now is a follow-up in the trade and technical Press. The man in the train reads his national newspaper and sees that the problem exists, but he never thinks of it as applying to himself when he gets a little older or, if he is an employer, as applying to his own industry. The only way to get it home to him is by a spirit of emulation within each industry or each occupation to see-which can do more to make it possible for those who wish to do so to stay on at work; and not only in each industry but in each locality. The right medium to get this competitive spirit going is the trade and technical Press, and the local Press as well.

We have begun to see some of the results of the Report. I was very glad that, in reply to a Question by me on Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to report that some modifications of age restrictions had been made. Although I was very pleased with my hon. Friend's answer at the time, when I came to read it I began to come to the conclusion that it was rather vague. He talked of 60 firms having withdrawn age limits and about 500 firms having notified specific vacancies for older workers. If I remember rightly, there are something like a quarter of a million firms in the country, and the word "firm" does not mean very much unless one knows its size. It may employ two or three people, or 4,000 or 5,000 people. I hope that if he speaks today, my hon. Friend will give us some rather more detailed information on that subject.

Then we had a characteristically slap-happy interruption from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) who asked: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it ironical that, when, we have labour-saving devices and are entering into the atomic age for power, we are thinking in terms of a long working life rather than a shorter working life?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 181–2.] I hope that since Tuesday the hon. Member has had a chance to read the Report, because I think it contains the best answer to him.

Of course, if he will only think of it in other terms. I am sure he will realise that the real nature of the problem is that even if we do move into an atomic age the choice is going to be—and I put it very simply—between a longer working life and longer working hours. I would say that it was better to have a longer working life with shorter working hours, and I hope that the hon. Member will begin to agree with me.

Mr. G. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman is assuming, of course, that productive capacity and the wealth of the nation will go on at the same rate as at present?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

Yes, I am, but I would prefer that the hon. Member should read the Report, because I think he will find his question very well answered in it.

I now wish to turn to one specific problem and to deal with it in some detail. In Chapter 4 of the Report, the Committee deals with unemployment in the professional, managerial and executive classes. We have all had constituency experience of problems of this type of unemployment. I remember, when I was first interested in this subject, writing a letter on it to a daily paper urging that more consideration should be given to the need for employing the talents of such people. The result was that I had the largest mailbag I have ever had. I received 400 letters and each one told a story of wasted talents and frustrated hopes.

These are the unhappy men and women who have had to change their calling in middle life. The security enjoyed by the black-coated worker in most of his occupations is paid for by this minority. It is really separate from the wide general problem which the Committee has been considering.

I suggest that the Committee should hive off—that is a fashionable phrase nowadays—a separate sub-committee to consider this problem and should co-opt men from the business world who can help it to find new avenues of employment. There should be representatives not only of the employers, but of ex-Service men's organisations and the professions and so on. If such a subcommittee could concentrate on this aspect of the problem—now that the Committee is already on the way to finding a solution to the problems of pension schemes—I am sure it would not be long before its eye would light on the Appointments Bureau of the Ministry of Labour as a stumbling-block.

Of all the Ministry of Labour departments, the most criticised is the Appointments Bureau. I have never yet found an employer, or anyone on the register of that Bureau, who had any good to say of it. Inevitably, it must remain part of the Ministry, but my right hon. and learned Friend might consider a little devolution. The Appointments Bureau is really not suitable for a civil servant to run, and if I offend anyone there by that remark, I apologise. We need someone at the top who has contacts with the business world, who knows the type of job that is available, and who can bring employer and employee together. The Bureau is failing to do that at present.

I have said that the Committee might find new types of employment. When the new Food and Drugs Bill, which will be before the House becomes law, it will, in its early days, lead to an increased number of sanitary inspectors. There will be a very big increase in personnel, and it will not be possible to train enough new professional men in a short time. Would it not be possible—and this applies also in the case of factory inspectors where they are short of establishment—for a short time to dilute, if that is the right phrase, and employ middle-aged men with some technical experience to act as scouts for the factory or sanitary inspectors—to do the preliminary, elementary work of inspection? It is a small point, but I hope it will be considered.

Would my hon. Friend also draw the Committee's attention to the powers which he has under the Employment and Training Act, 1945, to retrain many of these middle-aged men and women who have talents which could be used in other callings? Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend. This is the first chapter in a very great work.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

The two hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken have approached this subject in a reasonable and kindly manner. The problem of our older folk is not one to be lightly treated, but I am very conscious that, as we approach the problem of the age rate getting heavier on one side of the scale, we must not commit the terrible error of sacrificing on the altar of a possible crisis in 1977 the old folk of today.

I do not accept the reality that every six or seven workers are at present maintaining an old age pensioner. There are millions of low-paid workers who do not pay Income Tax at all, and the Exchequer contribution to National Insurance must also be taken into account. We are talking about maintaining our old folk at a decent standard of life—

Mr. Drayson

I meant supporting by their production, and not necessarily by their taxation or other contributions.

Mr. Thomas

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and glad that I gave way because, of course, the old folk can only be maintained by the productive capacity of British industry. This does not appear to be a party issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are in danger of forgetting that the productive output per person is going ahead tremendously.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

But not fast enough.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Member is not noted for his pessimism. Is he saying that by 1977 we shall have more people growing old than we have young people to improve the productive capacity of our industries? The potential atomic developments in industry—to which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) paid such little concern—are too big for us to envisage. To say that the solution is a longer working life is not one that I find desirable.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

The hon. Member is falling into the trap of which he accused me of falling into. It is not necessarily a question merely of a longer working life but of a rising standard of living and shorter hours.

Mr. Thomas

I do not want to be at cross purposes with the hon. Member, but the old folk have a right to expect that they can retire and have a worth-while pension at an age which, goodness knows, is old enough for the man who has worked hard in the field of industry. There are some jobs in which one can go on to the age of 80, such as politics. We have a Member here. People carry on for a long time in the medical profession. There are certain professions which do not impose great physical strain, but when we come to the hard, dirty field of industry, it is a different story. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) referred to some grand old folk in his constituency. We all have such people, and we are very proud of them. We take visitors to see them, because they are carrying on at work at such a good age. But they are the exceptions, or we should not take our visitors to see them.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan

It would save the time of the House if the hon. Member would read the Report, because the point about heavy industry is dealt with very fully there.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman is either a backward pupil or is unwilling to appreciate that it is possible to read that Report without agreeing with it. Its conclusions are not necessarily right, and it would be foolish for us to hasten to welcome it this afternoon, because it might have very dangerous repercussions when the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners make their demands. They are continually being told that it will cost £1,025 million to give a pension of £2 10s. a week to pensioners of 65 years of age in the year 1970. Who knows what our resources will be then?

Mr. Watkinson

The work of my Committee is to provide work for those who want to work. There is no compulsion.

Mr. Thomas

We want as many people as possible who are fit to work, and want to work, to have the chance to do so. The thing to do is to let them have their full pension while they carry on at work, but we must also safeguard the avenues of promotion for those who are coming in behind. It is rather sickening for fellows to find that their chances of promotion are cluttered up by older persons who ought to be having a rest, so that the younger men with younger brains can have a chance.

This country's greatness has rested, in the past, on the resilience and adaptability of our people, and the fact that in all age ranges they have felt that they were having a square deal. I am nervous about this Report, and I hope we shall go slow about approving it.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) lamented the length of the speeches of the "criminologists," as he called them. We can all at least join in hoping that the length of their sentences will be in inverse ratio to that of their speeches. We all know some people who hope that will be the case.

This is a very serious and important subject, and one that occupied the minds of members of the last Government. Although one recognises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), it does happen that there is change in the age structure of our population, and there is nothing we can do now that will prevent that. Therefore, there is, first, the demand for higher and better standards of life for people in this country; secondly, at the same time it is a question of asking those who are actually in employment to restrain their demands because of the added burden of increased payments for education for our youngsters, essential and right as it is, and thirdly there is also the objective that we all have of improving the standards of life of those who have laboured in the past and to whom we owe practically everything so far as the wealth of this great nation is concerned. It is a question of trying to get a balance between all these very important considerations.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the desirability of saying to our older people that none of us wishes compulsorily to keep them at work when they have passed the age of greatest usefulness at work. Indeed, in paragraph 6 of the Introduction to the Report the point is made: We do not wish it to be thought that the object of the policy is to force men and women to continue in employment. I do not think there is anything between the two sides of the House on that issue.

In paragraph 10 of that Introduction reference is made to the Committee set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the economic and financial problems involved in providing for old age, having regard to the prospective increase in the number of the aged, and to make recommendations. I should think that the problem facing the Parliamentary Secretary's Committee is that there is precious little more it can do until that Committee has issued its report.

All the hon. Members who have spoken so far have drawn attention to the financial consequences of older people continuing at work. I should think it is pretty essential that the Committee the Chancellor has set up should expedite its work and report as soon as possible, so that the hon. Gentleman's Committee can see the results of its work and then go ahead to issue its second report. We are at the moment in a sort of interim stage in which it is not possible for any of us to see any dramatic results of the Report we are discussing. It is only a few months since that Report was issued, and it outlines this question of adapting men's minds to new conditions.

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us whether there is any instance of considerable changes taking place in specific industries and professions. There are oblique references in the Report, but there is no particular reference. It would not be a bad idea, I think, to give prominence to specific instances where we know that employers and employees have combined to bring about a change in conditions. That could be an example to those who have not done so. That in itself, I think, would be of considerable assistance.

The main problem is not so much that of getting back into industry those who have already retired. If they want to return, by all means let them do so. But the bigger issue is to keep them in employment while they are there. It is a tremendous change for a person who has retired for a year or two to return to employment; and it is expecting a great deal to ask him to have sufficient courage to do so or to believe that all employers will welcome back a man who has retired. The main weight of what we are trying to do, therefore, should be concentrated upon keeping people in the same firm.

I do not say "the same job"; we all recognise that, with the passing of years, it is necessary, especially in some types of industry, that men should change the job which they do. In some instances this involves changes in methods of production, but employers must realise that the alternative is that they will not get the manpower at all. The population is ageing; it is not a question of waiting a little while in order to get the younger men, for the younger men are not there. Perhaps we could show employers that they must face this fact and that it is necessary for them to begin adapting plant and methods of production in order to make sure that an older man can be retained in the firm while being transferred to a lighter job.

In the Report there is a reference to certain bodies which are examining this complex subject—universities, for instance. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Ministry or the Committee has submitted specific problems to such organisations? The Report suggests that the main weight of the work is being done in the Ministry of National Insurance, but reference is made to the universities, and the words "full encouragement" are used. What does "full encouragement" mean? Is there any need for financial assistance and, if there is, is the Parliamentary Secretary authorised to provide financial assistance? That is an important point upon which we should like some information.

The old and thorny question of pension schemes is still with us. I do not know whether there has been any example which we could quote where great changes have been brought about in superannuation and pension arrangements, possibly in a private firm or possibly in a nationalised industry. Is there such an example which could serve as a lead to others—for it would serve as a lead if it were known that somebody had successfully tackled the problem.

A question which is also discussed in the Report concerns matters of recruitment. That is very vital indeed. I have said that, in the main, we must keep older people at work and not expect them to come back to work. On the other hand, there are many thousands of retired people who would welcome the opportunity of going back to work. If, however, they are to be received with the old sort of sergeant-major outlook, which I can recall in certain firms, that in itself would frighten them off. I think that it is most important that employers—and I see that in the popular edition of the Report a point is made of this—should give completely new instructions and perhaps completely new training to the people whom they employ in this work. It is most important that that should be done.

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what is happening about this in the Civil Service. I know that an approach was made during my period at the Ministry of Labour to this subject, but there again it is a very difficult matter to deal with because of the background against which people originally took their jobs. I remember a case myself, to which the Parliamentary Secretary may remember my referring, of an employee of the Ministry of Labour who had to retire at 60, and who did not like it a bit. He had been employed at the Ministry of Labour practically the whole of his life and had reached a very considerable degree of promotion during his time with the Ministry. He was forced to retire at 60.

I am not saying that people do not deteriorate—and some deteriorate faster than others. I am suggesting that it is necessary that there should be a sort of sideline. If we can take out a person from the stream of jobs which lead to promotion and give him a sideline job, then he does not hold back the younger man who, very rightly and naturally, is looking forward to promotion and feels that if the older man is to stay his own promotion will be retarded. I should have thought that there was a possibility, especially in Government Departments and in some local government establishments, for us to create the sort of job which was outside the general stream of jobs which qualified for promotion, and which, therefore, would not preclude a younger man from getting the measure of promotion which he felt he should have. At the same time, it would give the older man an opportunity to stay on and do a very useful job of work, and for use to be made of his experience.

These are matters which we have now to tackle. I should like to think that the Chancellor's Committee is going to report in good time, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would answer some of the points which have been raised in the debate.

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) for raising this matter this afternoon, and I am only sorry that we have not had longer to discuss it. I am sure that there are many other hon. Members on both sides of the House who would have liked the opportunity to contribute to this most important subject.

This is a very important task and it is one which it is quite impossible, as my hon. Friend said in moving his Motion, to avoid facing because of the changes in our age structure which are now taking place and which will accelerate during the next 20 or 30 years; so there is no possibility of going into reverse. This is a national problem, but it is one which, I hope, we shall regard as a challenge to our social consciousness as a nation and not as something about which to be depressed about. We are not an ageing nation; we are a nation of people who are getting a little older—that is all.

May I make it plain that my Committee has not finished its work; it has only just started. The Report before the House is an interim Report, because we felt it wise to keep the House and the public informed of what we are doing. I want to make it clear that the National Advisory Committee is a standing committee. It has a great deal more work to do, and the agenda for its next meeting in March is a very long and complicated one. We have also set up a research sub-committee which meets at frequent intervals, and we shall set up other subcommittees if the need arises. I make the point that this is a continuing job and that we have only just scratched the surface at the moment.

If we want a good illustration of how important this is, we had better examine what we sometimes mean by "old people." There are not many Members of this honourable House who are under the age of 40, and yet any man over 40 today can be a most difficult placing proposition for us in the Ministry of Labour. So we are all in grave danger in the House if force of circumstances should find us going to the employment exchange or the Appointments Office to look for another job. People do not always realise that, in finding jobs, old age does not necessarily start at the age of 60 or 65. I am afraid it starts at 40. That is a matter of great importance.

Much of the work of my Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) pointed out, must be concerned with the problem particularly of professional people who may become almost unemployable if they are unlucky enough to fall out of their jobs or professions at any time after the age of 40. That is rather a different viewpoint on the problem, and to some extent it answers the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), that this is a wide problem and concerns not only old-age pensioners or people over the normal pensionable ages.

May I say what we are trying to do in our Committee and make it plain how we are working with the Chancellor's Committee, which is looking into the financial implications? This will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). We feel quite convinced that the principal barrier to the employment of older people of any age over 40 lies in our traditional attitude of mind to this problem. This was the first job of my Committee, to try to bring people to a better understanding of the issues involved so that they would change their employment practices.

Let me remind the House of the two principles which we want people to bear in mind when they examine this problem of employing older men and women. We want them to remember these two things, which really are the two principles that my Committee is trying to hammer home: first, that the test when engaging staff should be capacity, and not age; that an employer should not look at somebody applying for a job and ask "How old are you?" but should say "How able are you, how well-qualified are you to do this job?" Capacity, not age, ought to be the first consideration when recruiting staff or engaging people.

The second thing, which is, perhaps, even more important, as several hon. Members have said, is that all those in any kind of job or profession who can continue to give effective service in their jobs should have the opportunity to continue—again, quite apart from any artificial barrier of age. If we could make progress on these two points, we could have a powerful influence on employment policy. We could offer much wider scope for jobs for older men and women. If we could do this, it would have an important bearing on the whole work of the Chancellor's Committee. That is why our two Committees must go on working in parallel, and we are keeping in very close touch with one another.

I think it can be seen that if we succeed—and there are signs that we are beginning to succeed—in widening the scope for jobs for older men and women, we shall help the Chancellor's Committee, because there will not be such a heavy burden in pensions, and so on, to be faced. I am not, however, arguing the details of the pensions aspect today.

I have been asked from both sides of the House what my Committee is doing, whether we are beginning to show signs of progress and what we will do in the future. Let me talk first about signs of progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate rightly said, we were greatly indebted to the Press for the very great interest they took in the launching of this campaign. As a result, we are beginning to see quite definite results. I said in the House the other day—these figures are only a start—that over 500 firms have modified their employment regulations for older people. A number of firms have now started specifically notifying vacancies for people over normal pensionable ages. But that is only a start.

To take another example, I have here a long list of firms which we know have changed their policy. I will not quote their names, but one firm, a large shipbuilding and ship-repairing undertaking, has told us that there is now no fixed retirement age provided the workers remain capable of carrying out their duties. That is what we want. This firm tells me that it has 2,400 manual workers including 80 over 65, and 48 over 70.

One of the fascinating and rather rewarding things about the work of this Committee is the human problems and the human successes which come to its attention. It is quite amazing to find the heavy and detailed work that people over 70 can do. Certainly the evidence of medical experts on the Committee, that if people want to live longer they had better work longer, seems to be proved by the examples we have had.

We have had case after case of men in the 70's and even in the 80's who are carrying out in some cases manual labour and in other cases highly skilled work in the engineering shop. In every case that has come to my notice, they are really playing a very full and useful part as essential members of the community. I want to stress that point, because it answers the case put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West about the problem of employing older men and women.

First of all, we must remember there is no compulsion. All we want to do is to give a chance to people to go on working if they wish so to do. But having said that, I want to make it plain that my Committee and the Government think it is in the national interest that they should do so.

Let me give one or two examples. In this country we are terribly short of skilled engineering craftsmen. In the Ministry of Labour we cannot find enough of them to fill the vacancies. In our older craftsmen there is a reservoir of craft skill that we cannot afford to lose. When those men become too old or unwilling to do the hard and long shifts on the floor of the shop, they can become instructors of the younger generation. In one firm they form a separate group in the factory, and these older men work rather shorter hours; but they are turning out most highly skilled work. It is in this flexible way that we must offer these opportunities for older men and women to play their part.

What else are we trying to do today? We have sent out 120,000 copies of the popular edition of our Report, and every local employment committee, which is a joint body of employers and trade unionists which works very closely with my Ministry—we have a local employment committee in every major town in this country—is bringing this pamphlet and Report to the notice of their employer and trade union members. We have discussed the Report in the National Joint Advisory Council, and the employers, the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries have all promised me that they will recommend this policy to their members and discuss it carefully to see how best it can be brought into effect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentioned the difficult problem of the professional man. We have been worried about the bar that pension schemes set up to continued employment. I have met the Association of Superannuation and Pensions Funds and I had the honour of addressing its annual conference. It has promised me, and it has authorised me to say, that any employer today who feels that a pension fund or superannuation scheme is a bar to the employment of older men and women should get in touch with the Association, and it will be able to show him how to modify that policy so that it is no longer a bar to the continued employment of professional people. We have made a little progress there.

I am meeting the building societies next week to discuss their employment policy with them. We are finding that chambers of commerce and Rotary clubs are taking up this work. The London Chamber of Commerce recently had a conference, organised by the "News Chronicle." which dealt again with the whole problem of how best to find more scope for older men and women. All this work in detail perhaps would not seem vital, but it is gradually building up in volume, and we have to influence opinion over the whole country.

There are as well many technical matters which we have to study and examine. For instance, an inquiry is being carried out for us by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to see whether we can find out the causes which make some people want to retire and others to stay at work. There are some more complex studies that the Committee is making into the capacity and fitness for work at later ages and the problem of job-switching in middle life. As the hon. Member for Newton said, a man may go on working in the same firm but at a different job. That is important and the Committee realises that we shall have to tackle it if we are to solve this problem, which is a complex but fascinating one.

It is common ground in this House, as on both sides of industry, that its solution is in the national interest. If we want an expanding economy and a rising standard of living, we cannot afford to allow these people to go on to the scrapheap because we cannot provide them with work. In the professional classes we hear of the most pathetic cases of people who desperately want to work, who know that they are capable of doing a job and providing skill and services which this country needs, and yet we cannot help them.

I want to say a word about our Appointments Office which deals with these people. There is not time to go into this in detail, but the difficulty is that we cannot place people unless we have vacancies. We do everything we can to get them. We even send people about the country trying to find vacancies. That is where the work of my Committee comes in. If we can break down the barriers against the employment of older men and women we shall have a much easier job, both in the Appointments Office and in our employment exchanges, in finding work for them.

I could say a great deal more on this important subject if time permitted. A phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton sticks in my memory—that we should regard these people much more as V.I.Ps. The interpretation I would put on "V.I.P." is "Veterans in Production," and that is the note on which I want to end. May I say here that there are no party politics in the Committee? If we were to argue who gave it birth and who had credit for it, that is divided equally between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. The point is that the Committee has a job to do and it is not just to amuse the older men and women. Its job is to give them new hope, to give them a useful job to do where they can feel that they are serving their country and helping themselves. From a medical point of view, I am sure that is the way to have a healthier and happier older age section of the population.

So I appeal for the co-operation of employers, trade unionists, hon. Members of this House and all people of good will in this task. It will be a continuing task for many years but, if we solve the problem, we shall have done much to make our country more prosperous in the future, and to make a lot of healthier older people in our population.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the First Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, and urges Her Majesty's Government to give every encouragement to both employers and work people wishing to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.