SEX DISCRIMINATION (AGE OF RETIREMENT) (Hansard, 3 March 1976)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate discrimination between men and women as to the age of retirement. The Bill is not designed to require men to retire at 60 but to enable them to do so if they wish, on the basis that there can be no justification for forcing men to soldier on until they are 65, however ill they may be and however much they may wish to retire, while women who have equal rights in all other respects are able to retire at 60.

The present system is ludicrous. There are more than 1 million unemployed people, of whom most are well and most are anxious to work. There are also about 1 million men aged between 60 and 64, the majority of whom wish to retire but are unable to do so. Men who do not want to retire are forced to do so, and men who are anxious to have a decent and comfortable retirement are required by our incredible system to work on. At a time when women had fewer rights than men there was justification for women to have a shorter working life. But today when women—who live longer—are able to retire earlier the system is without logic or humanity.

Women have equal rights in work. They have had equal pay from 29th December. The Sex Discrimination Act is in force. Women will shortly be entitled to maternity pay and be free to return to work after they have given birth to a child at any time within 29 weeks. On the other hand, men will be forced to do without many of those rights by definition, but will also be required to continue to work on for an extra five years.

The expectation of life of a woman who retires at 60 is 19.9 years. An average of nearly 20 years of retirement lie before her. A man who retires at 65 may look forward to 12.1 years of retirement—12 years instead of 20 years. There can be no justification for that gross inequality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and I, who have been pressing for this measure, are 1322 asked how it can be afforded at a time when there is little money and a high rate of unemployment. Our answer is that the high rate of unemployment is an indication of the low cost. The jobs vacated by people who are earning but who will go on to pension will be taken by people who are at present unemployed and receive unemployment benefit. That would save the Exchequer a substantial sum. What is more, the man who will be retiring will usually have only himself and his wife to look after, whereas the man who takes his place at work will usually be a family man. He will be anxious to have a job and will be paying tax and national insurance contributions when he gets back to work.

In reply to a question asking how much the total cost of the measure would be, the answer was given of about £1,500 million a year. That is a gross figure, taking no account of the savings which would be achieved through the drop in the unemployment figure.

The number of people at present unemployed, excluding persons temporarily stopped and adult students, at the last count, was 1,251,826, just over 1¼ million, of whom 981,308 are men. So we have a total unemployment figure of about 1¼ million, of whom probably 1 million are fit and could work. The total number of men aged between 60 and 64 is 1,491,500, just under 1½ million, of whom 1,171,000, at the latest count in 1972, were at work. The number of men be-between 60 and 64 who are at work almost matches the number of people who are unemployed.

We can safely reckon that although some of the jobs vacated by men who leave them in order to retire would be left empty and not be refilled, there would still be a balance of about 750,000 jobs, which would just about match the number of able-bodied and younger people who at present are unemployed and unhappy, willing and anxious to work and unable to do so, who are living off unemployment benefit, social security benefits, and unable to keep themselves and their families in a dignified way.

Therefore, we are forcing elderly men to remain at work and depriving them of a decent and dignified retirement at the very same time as we are keeping people out of work who are anxious to 1323 perform a dignified task and get on with the job but who are unable to do so because jobs are not available. I estimate, balancing the cost in purely financial terms, that my proposals would cost about £500 million a year. However, we cannot also leave out of account the social costs or the suffering which is caused to people who are forced to stay on at work when they are unfit to do so. If we compare £500 million with £51,172 million which is the estimated total public expenditure for 1975–76, it is about 1 per cent. at the very most.

Ever since it became known that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North and I were hoping that leave would be given to introduce this Bill, we have received a flood of correspondence from people all over the country saying how much they hope that the House will give leave to introduce the Bill and that it will be passed, if not in this form, perhaps in some other form if it is taken up by the Government.

I ask hon. Members to listen to two brief extracts from two typical letters from two totally different parts of the country. The first is from a gentleman who says that he will reach the age of 65 on 20th June 1976, so this measure would be too late to help him. He said: I used to literally groan with exhaustion and distress as I walked out at 5.00 p.m. every day. When I had still 97 weeks left to work … I was past it but struggled along until July 74. I was completely shot by then … I appealed to one of your friends the Labour M.P. for Oldham who is secretary to the Pensions, a wonderful person, to see if I could retire early and obtain a reduced pension until I was 65 but he could not help me. I would have like to have retired in decency and honour. I don't want sick or dole, had I continued to work full time it would have killed me and yet I can't manage on part time earnings. I feel, though it can be of no use to me, that you are embarking on a great and needful task in which there 1324 is tremendous humanity and a lot of needy cases in the 60–65 age group. The other letter says: I am a young-looking "60"… but at most times I feel "70". I have Hernia trouble, Vertigo, low blood pressure and also lost a leg in the last war, and I have often wondered how on earth I can keep going for another five years. I am only stating this, and I know there must be hundreds who feel the same way or are in a worse position and would welcome a chance to slow down (as my doctor keeps telling me). Please don't think I am feeling sorry for myself. It is just that I feel sometimes that having worked all these years (46) one begins to feel ready to call a halt. The House has the opportunity to call a halt to a system that is unkind, that lacks compassion and common sense and that is ludicrous in the modern world. The House has the chance to provide equality for men in a way that all hon. Members would welcome.

I ask that leave be given to introduce this Bill in the hope that it may be one of those rare, brief measures that will be allowed to go through.