Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

Even smoking, of which I am guilty, and of which a noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite has been guilty in the past. How far does the noble Baroness hope that her equality proposals will go? Would private health insurers—on which the noble Lord tempts me—have to raise women’s premiums because of the possibility of prostate cancer? That would be ridiculous. As I said, why stop at sex equality? Why should not travel insurance companies be able to charge more if people plan on their winter holiday to ski off piste rather than in the normal run of things? Competition between providers already protects the consumer against unreasonable discounting on the ground of gender. Any remaining discount for women is therefore merely a reflection of the extra money that they will receive as a result of living longer. The figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has produced will inevitably come together over time. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Hunt, on that and I see no reason for the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c983-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Companies Annuities Competition Administrative delays Equality Health Eligibility Gender Income tax Divorce Insolvency Discrimination Financial assistance scheme Index linking Private sector Workplace pensions Pensions Lump sum payments Pension Protection Fund PAYE Scotland State retirement pensions Regulation Taxation Retirement State earnings related pension scheme Pensions Regulator Private equity Civil partnerships dissolution State second pension Impact assessments
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk