Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Debate between Andrew George and Tessa Munt

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the way in which he brought the issue forward and articulated the case, which I thoroughly endorse. I could repeat the points made by all speakers so far, but I will not—there will not be time anyway.

All I will say is that I was engaged on debates on this issue prior to starting my nine-year sabbatical from this place in 2015. At that stage, I thought we were making progress, particularly after the Government had at least accepted the ombudsman’s case, although they did not provide sufficient compensation at the time. I assumed that, by the time I came back nine years later, the matter would be resolved and there would no longer be an issue. However, we are no further forward than we were in 2015.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the debate. Exactly the same thing happened to me: I have had my nine-year sabbatical and we were talking about this for five years before I left. I pay tribute to the late Michael Oliver, who lived in my constituency. He is one of the 1,500 people who were affected by this absolute scandal. I am disappointed to find that I am back here, 16 years later, running through the same flipping arguments. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Andrew George]

Perhaps we should form the nine-year sabbatical club, and compare this issue with others that have simply not moved forward.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, the situation is entirely down to regulatory maladministration and failure. It is Government failure. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth implied that there were crooks involved; certainly money was taken improperly, and there was a failure on the part of Government to protect investors in the way that they should have done at the time.

I say gently that I remember at the time that the then Labour Opposition complained that the announced package of £1.5 billion was insufficient—Oppositions do this, and I am not making a Punch and Judy point, but here is an opportunity for a Labour Government to stand up to the criticisms they raised at that time and to address the issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said, there is still money in the pot. If more than a third of the £4.1 billion that was identified as needed in compensation was provided through the £1.5 billion package from the Government, why is it that my constituents who I talk to and who are still very embittered, understandably, about this situation, are only getting 22.4%? The sums do not add up. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, it is because of the way this particular cake has been cut up.

The Minister responding to the debate also replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in March this year, saying that the scheme is

“on track to distribute the remainder of the £1.5 billion as planned”

in annual payments to eligible policyholders. If that, at least, could be done, that would be great, so that those who should be receiving compensation actually receive it—although, again, it is insufficient.

In my view, it is best to humanise the situation. For the many constituents who brought their cases to me, the situation has caused a strong sense of embitterment. My constituency has a large number of people who are self-employed but still live on the margins, and they have scrimped and saved to invest in their pensions and future. They looked for a reputable company, thought that Equitable Life was one and invested through it. One such person is Howard, who in 1978, started to save with what he understood to be the best company he could find: Equitable Life. He told me:

“I was self-employed living and working in a Cornish village where I was born and brought up and still live after 86 years with my wife, who has dementia and is registered blind. We pay for and rely on others to do everything for us like food, cleaning, driving...even twice every day carers come attending both of us...THIS IS SHOCKING, THIS IS ROBBERY BY OUR GOVERNMENT!!”

In 1995, Teresa opened an Equitable Life personal pension plan with a small monthly payment, as well as a separate bond. She told me:

“When Eq. Life ceased business, I transferred the small pension amount to link it with a work pension I had.”

She is supposed to be retired, but she now has to work part time to make ends meet. She said:

“I have always endeavoured to save as best as able, which all governments encourage us to do. However, after all this time I don’t think we will ever receive what is owed to us.”

Surely we can reassure people that they will get what they are due. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all other Members who have engaged with the issue; I hope that the Minister is listening and will address it.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Debate between Andrew George and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I agree. In fact, we do not just need specialists; we also need training for GPs and other healthcare workers.

I will highlight four areas in which we need to see much more from the Government going forward. Given the gravity of the situation, I would appreciate it if the Minister could arrange for written responses to a number of my points.

The first area is funding. If the delivery plan felt threadbare, that is because no substantive new funding was attached to it. Before the plan was published, all 72 Lib Dem MPs signed a letter expressing our concerns about the anticipated lack of funding, which of course came to pass. To put it bluntly, what patients need is transformed NHS care and a step change in research. Neither is likely to happen without investing some money.

The case for investment is clear. I urge the Minister to see this not as a sunk cost, but as an investment in a group of people who are desperate to contribute to society. We know that one in five working-age adults are out of the workforce, many because of health problems, yet remarkably there was no modelling of the demography of those living with ME for the delivery plan exercise, and neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor the Department for Work and Pensions has an estimate of what the neglect of people with ME is costing our economy.

I would like to look at some of the figures. The most recent estimate of the economic impact of ME was for 2014-15—10 years ago—and was carried out by 20/20health. The cost was then calculated at £3.3 billion annually, based on only 260,000 people living with ME. With many more affected following the pandemic and a decade of inflation, that cost will now be much higher. Even the most conservative estimate of current numbers living with ME, excluding cases linked to long covid, puts them at 404,000 patients. Does the Minister accept, using that conservative estimate and adjusting for inflation, the annual economic impact of ME today is likely to be at least £7 billion? If those living with ME-like symptoms following covid are included, we could be approaching an annual cost of £20 billion. Surely it is time for the Government properly to cost the impact of a condition that affects so many, rather than brush it under the carpet, and to invest accordingly.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. She will be aware that there is still significant uncertainty among many clinicians as to whether this should be treated a medical rather than a psychological condition. Does she agree that, because of the gravity and extent of cases around the country, it is important that medical services are supported to deal with those patients and their symptoms?

[Tessa Munt]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.

Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.

Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew George and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, will she take one brief intervention?

[Tessa Munt]

Of course.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the manner in which the utility companies charge for their power. One further disincentive for those on low income is the advantage that is given to those who can pay their bills by direct debit, as those who live on the margins of credit clearly cannot take advantage of the various deals available to those who have no difficulty in that regard. If we are to wrap up a set of policies that help the less well-off, I would hope that this issue would be addressed as part of it.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I ask the Minister to add that suggestion to my list.

I assume that it is Government policy, but I am unable to see where it is explicitly stated that all new homes and buildings should be carbon neutral and that that might in some way be reinforced by building regulations. I would like to be given some clarification on that point.

I also believe that it is crucial for assessors to have a duty to ensure the best for the individual customer. I am talking not about the best financial deal or the best deal for the provider, but about the best deal for the individual consumer. We should not be dependent on any one organisation to carry out those assessments, be it B&Q, Marks & Spencer or anyone else; consumers must have some protection and various options.

I would like the Minister to address one particular issue. Park homes have been mentioned and in my constituency there are quite a lot of mobile homes as well as 11-month homes, which are homes, perhaps on the coast, where people are able to live for only 11 months of the year. Do those buildings have any different arrangements? I am concerned about Airey homes and prefab homes, which are definitely not energy-efficient types of building in the first place. Are there special arrangements for them?

I am keen that there should be a tougher stance on private landlords. Private homes, certainly in my constituency, are often occupied by people who are unable to have social housing because there is so little of it. About 2,600 people are waiting for social housing in my constituency and as they have little hope of obtaining a social home of any sort, they move into the private rented sector. I would prefer it if a private landlord could not reasonably refuse any request to be part of the scheme as a huge group of tenants would be affected.

I was interested to hear about appliances, the need to replace many of them and whether that could be done more efficiently. I wonder whether the Government might consider some sort of scrappage scheme.

As I understand it, the Secretary of State has the ability to override offshore wind leases if requested by oil and gas companies. I want a clause that prevents that from happening or, if it is going to happen, provides a clear compensation mechanism for early termination. Otherwise, we will move away from having any investor security.

Finally, I ask the Government to accept the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. I hope that this scheme will achieve much more than any previous scheme has before.

Crown Currency Exchange

Debate between Andrew George and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

I hope so. There have been some arrests today, and I think that Devon and Cornwall police’s serious crime squad is taking part. I hope that that prefaces some action by the FSA.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Arrests have been made, including of one of my constituents. Indeed, the company’s offices were based in Hayle in my former constituency. The case has given rise to enormous concern, and although it is not on the same scale as sub-prime casino banking it has left many people in serious circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will advance her case, because this situation clearly needs to be regulated in future.

[Tessa Munt]

One might just need to get rid of “registered”, because it seems to have absolutely no meaning and to afford no protection—nothing.