---

Pensions Bill

I am sure that my noble friend will reflect on the amendment, because the world has changed since we had these debates—even those that we had in 2004, let alone earlier ones. First, the retirement age for women will gradually rise, as I think is right and proper. Secondly, and more to the point, the current discrepancy in longevity between men and women has fallen sharply over the past 10 or 15 years. There is now a difference of about two and a bit years, whereas the gap by social class—which, to the best of my knowledge, is not reflected in annuities unless impaired life is involved—is now something like four and a half years. We take account of one but not the other. I do not understand why we should do that, except that gender is an easily recognised flag in the system in a way that social class may not be, but that is unfair to women compared with other determinants of life expectancy. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, about whether we want to go into sub-group specification or whether we want something more general is entirely valid. But if the market is to move in that direction, it should put a far lower premium and weight on gender, which may be a minor factor now coming into play, and far more on social class, of which the best predictor of longevity is further and higher education and a degree. To say that the current arrangement applies for the benefit of women in other areas of life, such as car insurance, is a very old-fashioned perspective on the part of insurance companies. I believe that we should be offering unisex insurance to young men and young women alike. Then, if the young man proves to be an erratic or dangerous driver because, for example, he is involved in a car crash, his premium should be increased. However, it would not be right to make predictions. It would not have been right to say, for example, that when my younger son, who is an extremely careful and cautious driver, was 21 or 22, he should have carried an extra weight compared with the young daughter at the house next door, who, for all the insurers knew, might have been far more of a flibbertigibbet—as my mother or grandmother would have called her—in her driving. That would seem to be an absurd example of post hoc, propter hoc, which should have no place in the insurance industry. The Government recognise that argument. As far as I am aware, there is no gender distinction in the basic state pension, the state second pension and, above all, GMPs—goodness knows, we have enough amendments on guaranteed minimum pensions coming up. In other words, so far as concerns the state—quite properly in my view—people receive the same pension, irrespective of gender. The privileged marital status should get a 60 per cent dependency element but men and women get the same basic state pension, whether it is collected at the age of 60 or 65, and the same applies to GMPs. Conventionally, GMPs are part of the core of occupational pensions—unless the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, persuades the Committee to change its views on that. If, as a society and a state, we believe that it is right to have unisex cores in the state-element provision provided by contracting out, and in the state second pension or the basic state pension, why do we think that it is okay for the private sector to do things differently? I do not understand that. I accept that gender may remain a modest and diminishing marker, but other markers are far more important. If we insist on having a segmented insurance industry, we should re-examine this matter. I think that the day has come to say that this situation will not do for much longer.