§ Sir John Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money would be saved if the total number of men presently unemployed were absorbed into the work force; and how this would compare proportionately 199W with the cost of reducing the retirement age for men to 60 years of age.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettI have been asked to reply.
On the first part of the Question, as I explained in reply to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr Hayhoe) on 29th January, such estimates depend on a number of assumptions, so that it is not possible to provide a general answer.
On the second part of the Question, broad estimates can be provided of the net direct costs to public funds of reducing the minimum retirement pension age for men to 60 years. Specifically, allowing for the earlier payment of the retirement pension, and for the estimated net effect on national insurance—defined as including the net effects on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, and losses of employers' and employees' national insurance contributions—and on supplementary benefit, the change in male retirement age would involve a direct net cost of approximately £1,600 million at an annual rate, using current rates of benefit. Calculation of indirect effects would depend upon a large number of assumptions, and no general estimate can be provided.