§ 12. Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received on retirement age for men since 1st January.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins)No figures are maintained of the total number of letters that my Department gets on a particular issue, but so far this year there have been about 250 letters about men's pension age. which have received or will receive a ministerial reply.
§ Mr. McCrindleHas the Minister given any further consideration to the scheme whereby the retirement age of men would be advanced in six-monthly stages and the retirement age of women retarded in six-monthly stages, over five years until all ultimately retire at the age of 62½? Does the Minister agree that such a scheme would at least for the first two years, be almost self-financing? On a subject about which he will hear a great deal more over the coming years, is not this the most reasonable and defensible approach?
§ Mr. DeakinsI am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because for any age below about 64¼ years the cost of lowering men's pension age would exceed the savings from raising the age for women.
§ Mr. George CunninghamIn the longer term, is not the right objective to move towards a flexible retirement age for both men and women, at any age of their choice between 60 and 70 years, but of course with their getting a lower pension at 60 than they would at 70?
§ Mr. DeakinsIf, as my hon. Friend has suggested, having a flexible retirement age means the payment of a lower pension to someone retiring before normal pension age, the Government are opposed to that idea. Our aim is to provide higher and not lower pensions.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeWhat work, if any, is being done in the Department on the feasibility of a flexible retirement age? Will the Minister assure us that his last reply does not dismiss the idea of a flexible age as a more promising reform 185 than simply reducing the retirement age for men to a lower inflexible level?
§ Mr. DeakinsOur policy in the longer term would certainly be to see the retirement age for men lowered rather than to have a flexible retirement age, but we rule out a lowering of men's retirement age in present circumstances, because of the tremendous cost involved.
§ Mr. Gwilym RobertsIs not the real need to provide a target date for the retirement of men at 60? If this were spread out over a number of years, it would destroy the cost argument. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that almost every hon. Member finds it deplorable that the Government will not even give a target date for this basic measure of sex equality?
§ Mr. DeakinsSex equality could also be achieved by raising women's retirement age. However, as regards phasing in a lower retirement age for men, the total cost at the end of the period would still be substantial. It would mean a significant increase in the number of pensioners, which would make it much more difficult for us in the interim to raise the real living standards of the existing pensioner population.