Sir, The decision of the European Court of Justice that discrimination against male drivers by motor insurers violates the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights deserves a fairer hearing than your leading article (Mar 2) afforded it. When insurers charge me more than they charge a woman of exactly the same age and driving record they are saying in effect that because men are on average more dangerous drivers than women, they are entitled to assume that I am a more dangerous driver than the average woman. Insurers are attributing to me as an individual the characteristics of a class of people. If insurers did that on the basis of nationality they would be quite rightly denounced as racists. Why should they be allowed to do it on the basis of gender?
The same arguments do not apply to life insurance, pensions or annuities; the difference between the average male and female lifespan is the unavoidable product of genes, not of avoidable behaviour.
Why should male motor insurance premiums now remain the same while female ones go up? If insurers calculate common premiums for male and female clients on the basis of the average risk they face, and in pursuit of the same overall return on capital as they enjoy now, the premiums of the two should meet somewhere in the middle. The fierce competition in the insurance industry should make that happen.
Arguing that it is manifestly right that men should pay more than women for motor insurance because as a group they crash more often is only one small step from arguing that it is manifestly right that those whose lifestyle choices make them more likely to get sick or have accidents should pay more through tax or prescription charges for their NHS treatment. The ECJ has done our society a favour by pushing it just a little bit in the opposite direction towards the spreading of insurance costs across the greatest possible number of shoulders, even though women may find it hard to see it that way right now.
David Cockerham
Bearsted, Kent