Insurers unhappy with proposed EU sex discrimination directive

The proposal, presented by the Commission last Wednesday, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex in the provision of all goods and services, with justified exceptions. These apply where a good or service is intended exclusively or primarily for members of one sex (such as single-sex sessions in a swimming pool).

The proposed Directive would explicitly tackle the issues of premiums and benefits in the insurance sector. In a majority of cases, women pay higher premiums for pension and annuities or the plans pay out less per year, while men pay higher premiums for life insurance – on the grounds that women live longer.

However, says the Commission, there are a number of factors that are not linked to sex that are equally important in establishing life expectancy, such as socio-economic or marital status, the region a person lives in or levels of smoking.

Equally, in some member States a distinction between the sexes is made in motor insurance, with men paying higher premiums. Here again a number of factors other than sex play a role, and the Commission is of the view that calculating risk on the ground of sex alone amounts to discrimination.

A transitional period of six years is proposed, to allow industry to make the necessary changes.

Anna Diamantopoulou, Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, called it a "ground breaking proposal".

She added:

"Contrary to what businesses may fear, this directive would establish a public policy decision that gender discrimination in the access to and supply of goods and services is unacceptable. Therefore it secures a level playing field for businesses in the EU and consumer prices."

Insurers are not so impressed. According to Mary Francis, Director General of the ABI, the Commission "has started with the best of intentions, but this piece of EU legislation will do no-one any good."

She continued:

"At present, we can set prices fairly on the basis of genuine risk, which benefits all our customers. These proposals would mean women would have to pay more than a fair price for motor and life insurance. Conversely, men would have to pay more for annuities. As many more men than women receive income from an annuity, more pensioner households would lose than gain."