According to Nat: "In simple terms, Stephen does not get equal pay and conditions to another, younger, worker, simply by reason of his age. If Stephen falls ill, he cannot get the same access to speedy private healthcare that other people working for the company can get. That includes in relation to a workplace injury. If, heaven forbid, he died, his wife Marsha would no longer have compensatory insurance through death-in-service benefits."
And: "Another excuse that has been given is that covering older people becomes more expensive for everyone because the premium for the company goes up. This is, of course, an absurd excuse. Applying that logic, would it be okay to exclude from employment benefits people who have a heart condition, cancer, a bad back, a disability or a chronic condition? Of course not. We would say that that was discriminatory and wrong, because it is."
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-22/debates/EBD0AB91-6AFE-4EF9-9BBD-D3D7A93010B7/details#contribution-62C74D25-86B1-4E1C-A94B-9B657AA78CD8
Hm. I thought that healthcare is usually funded by constraints on pay rises and/or an insurance policy taken out by the employer, whereas death in service benefits are usually funded by a pension scheme to which employees and the employer contribute. With regard to the latter and in this case, extending DIS benefits beyond state retirement age will surely add to the pressure on contribution rates for all, if only marginally. I suppose Nat's next step will be to allow all new employees to join a pension scheme irrespective of their age when hired.