My Lords, if it is a nest egg that noble Lords are worrying about, then the arrears approach is not a huge distance away from what they might find quite attractive. The best thing that I can do is try to spell that out in a bit more detail in a rather considered letter to Members of the Committee, to see if it addresses their concerns. The counterpoint is that a lot of people take their nest egg and blow it on a car. Concern about the no-savings culture is the other side of the lump sum coin and those people will face later old age, if they live a long time, poorer than they otherwise would have been because it is a complicated decision. I will think a little bit harder about the arrears issue we have discussed because it might give noble Lords what they are after, possibly without needing to change very much, but I need to spell out how that might work. My team is looking ecstatic at that offer and will fully support any tea-time activities I might indulge in later.
5.30 pm
I will just make one point before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I know she always concentrates on the impact on women when it comes to pensions, for very good reasons. Historically, far more women than men deferred their state pension, but we expect the gender ratio to equalise as the pension age for women is aligned with that for men. Even allowing for an equal state pension age, women will typically draw their state pension for longer than men. Therefore, for women, the lump sum is likely to be less financially advantageous, and increments are likely to provide a better rate of return than for men. With that look into the future, and coming the closest I can go to giving any advice to anyone, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.