RETIREMENT (Hansard, 17 July 1979)

Mr. Greville Banner (Leicester, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for voluntary retirement for men at the age of sixty; to forbid the forced retirement of men or women before the age of seventy; and for connected purposes. There is no area of our law that is so devoid of logic or compassion than our rules on retirement. Hundreds of thousands of men are forced to remain at work when they are desperate for a decent and dignified retirement, while a multitude of younger people are desperate for the jobs that are occupied by those older people. Those who are happy to retire are forced to remain at work, others who wish to retire are not allowed to do so, and those who have no wish to retire are forced into unwanted idleness.

Women are permitted to retire when they are 60 and, indeed, often forced to do so when they would prefer to stay at work, while men who are often worn out through manual labour are forced to remain at work when they are so anxious to spend at least a limited time in the retirement to which they are entitled. As the number of people who are needed in employment in this country continues to shrink, as it is certain to do in an age of increased automation, so we are forcing people to remain at work who are only too willing to give up their places at work to those who are anxious to fill them.

This entire system is one that has grown up—a sort of creeping paralysis caused by Governments taking measures that may have been necessary at the time, making limited advances but creating a situation that is totally intolerable and one which, happily, is not matched in many other countries.

The object of the Bill is to remedy these anomalies by two simple steps: first, to provide for an equal voluntary retirement age for men and women, and, secondly, to require that there should be no forced retirement for either men or women before they reach the age of 70.

There is no logic in the present system. I well remember talking to a senior lady who used to be in this House and asking 1324 her how she could possibly justify the extraordinary difference between the way in which men and women are treated, and why in her view women should be allowed to retire at 60 while men must soldier on until they are 65. She replied with that logic for which she was so well known " Ah well, women live longer, don't they." After working that one out, we see that in her own way she had pointed to the ludicrous nature of a system which can only be justified, and which people only attempt to justify, on the ground of cost.

Of course, the cost of providing extra pensions for men aged between 60 and 65 would be great, but against that one must set off three factors. First, these people would be vacating jobs, most of which would be taken up by younger people who are at present on the dole and who in many cases are at present in receipt of supplementary benefit, as well as supporting a family, so that the entire household is being supported by the community when the breadwinner finds no place to work.

Secondly, there is the social cost of unemployment, particularly among the young, which one cannot interpret in terms of finance. There is that hardship, wretchedness and misery about which all of us know when we are in our constituencies and meet people young, middle-aged and in some cases in their late fifties or early sixties. They are people who want to work and who resent being regarded as scroungers by those who do not appreciate that jobs are not there to be found. They are people who are anxious to contribute and who hate idleness. Very often they are men who find themselves at home when their wives are objecting fiercely to their being underfoot. They are young people who come out of school and get into the habit of idleness when they want nothing other than to do a job that they will enjoy and in which they will be content. The financial cost will be far less than anyone has been able to estimate. No one really knows how much it will be, but if one sets the social cost alongside that the two together make these reforms very urgent.

Thirdly, no one is suggesting that a reform of this magnitude can be introduced overnight. All of us who support the Bill—and we come from both sides 1325 of the House—are asking for a commitment to logic and compassion and a commitment in principle to justice and the phasing in of a system that should have been introduced a long time ago. By introducing it in stages there will be some hope for those who are at present caught in this trap of illogical idiocy, which over a period of generations we in this House have created for them.

In a silicon chip revolutionary period in which the number of jobs is likely to sink still further, there will be fewer people employed and more will be seeking the jobs that exist. It is inevitable what will happen. There will be pressure for a shorter working week, for more leisure time and for people to have shorter working lives. There will also be pressure for the precious jobs to be occupied by those who need them most, and for those who do not wish to remain at work, because of their age or health, to be permitted in our decent society to retire when they are still well enough to do so. Those of us who have been involved in this campaign for years make no apologies to the House for continuing the pressure.

Only 18 months ago 1 million people signed a petition to the House asking for these changes. My colleague and friend the former hon. Member for Preston, North, Ron Atkins, and I received thousands of letters asking for the reform proposed in the Bill. People told us how much it would mean to them or how desperate their fathers or brothers were for retirement and how the system was destroying their lives.

We also received a number of letters—not many, but a significant number—from women asking why they should be forced to retire at 60 when they had no wish to do so. They asked why they should not be allowed to continue to contribute to the community when they were still young and why they should not be able to continue to earn the extra money that they desperately needed. Once again, the answer is that we have a system which 1326 is illogical, unfair and totally lacking in compassion.

We have in this area a guide and example from the United States—a rare and happy occurrence. We can learn from what they are doing because there is a law in operation in many parts of the United States that makes it an offence to force people into retirement before they reach the age of 70.

I believe that it is the wish of hon. Members in all parties who are connected with the Bill to ensure as far as we can not merely that those who wish to retire or need to retire are free to do so, but that those who are anxious and willing to remain at work should be entitled to do so.

We ask the House to commit itself not to immediate change but to the principle of justice in retirement practices, the principle of change and the principle of an overhaul of a system which is disastrous in its impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary families throughout the country. In those circumstances, and recognising the limitations of presenting a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, I ask the House to give leave for the Bill to he introduced.