§ 8. Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on flexible retirement dates; and if he considers that these should apply to both men and women.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI recognise the case for greater flexibility in relation to retirement ages for both men and women. However, we need to give further consideration to the problems involved before we put forward proposals.
§ Mr. McCrindleHas any progress been made to establish how many men wish to retire before 65 if they have the opportunity to do so? For that matter, is it known how many women would be prepared and anxious to go on working later than 60? Does my right hon. Friend agree that until there is better assessment of how many are in each category it is difficult to estimate the total cost that would be involved? Will he confirm that the long term aim of the Government is for sufficient flexibility in retirement so 271 that men and women may retire at any time between 60 and 65?
§ Mr. JenkinI give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is our long-term aim not only to see greater flexibility in retirement but progressively to ensure that there should be a move towards the same rules applying to both men and women. There is no strong feeling in the country against that proposition of which we are aware.
§ Mr. NewensDoes the Minister recognise that many men whose employment involves heavy manual labour are frequently obliged to give up work for health reasons long before the normal age of retirement? Is it not vital that these men should be rescued from the scrapheap and given an opportunity to retire early and carry on a reasonably decent form of life which, frequently, is not too rosy in its prospects anyway?
§ Mr. JenkinI am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the sort of scheme for partial retirement that, for example, is operated in Sweden. I have always seen the attractions of such a scheme. However, it is a proposition that will have to await the improved state of the economy before it can be contemplated.