NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1965 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 19 March 1968)

§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Bedfordshire, South)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Insurance Act 1965 by reducing the pensionable age for men to sixty. I am well aware that the bulk of the audience is not here to listen to me. In consideration of this and the fact that the Chancellor is shortly to follow, I shall be extremely brief, but I believe that there is a case, before we consider short-term financial measures, for considering important matters which will remain long after the speculators and their activities are forgotten.
The Bill is simple. It provides for the option of pensions at 60 instead of 65. This does not mean—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has undertaken to be brief; noise will extend his speech.

§ Mr. Roberts
This does not mean that any man would have to retire at 60. He would merely get this option.
250 I will state, without developing them, the three arguments for the Bill. The first is the argument for sex equality. Women receive pensions at 60, and sex equality is a two-way process. After all, actuarially a woman of 60 has a life expectancy of about four years greater than that of a man. The second argument is that of technological change. Whatever may be the short-term factors, the Labour Party was elected to power in 1966 as a party of technological revolution, and it is an inherent part of that process that people's working lives should be made shorter so that their time for recreation and pleasure may be greater. The third argument is a humanitarian one in that hundreds of thousands of people are forced to go on working into their sixties, when they are really incapable of doing so, simply because they have no pension provision.
The Bill is backed by many major blue and white collar unions. The only argument that could possibly be developed against it is that of cost. I venture to suggest, even as we face the Budget of 1968, that while we can spend £2,000 million a year on armaments, we can afford anything. I will not delay the House by developing my case for the Bill. I will only add that, as we wait to hear the Budget, I am not in the least sorry for having delayed the House for a few moments in Human Rights Year to initiate a very humanitarian Measure.