Equitable Life

Debate between James Morris and Bob Blackman

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I completely agree, and I will come on to our asks in a few minutes.

When we were elected in 2010 and the coalition Government came to the fore, that Government took action, as is acknowledged in the motion, and I was pleased that they did so. The piece of legislation to provide compensation was almost the first to be put through the House after the election.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Government did take some action. My constituents Jean Cooper, Ron Moseley and Tom Graham—Equitable Life victims who have done a lot of work campaigning—have made lots of representations to me. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the improving public finances, the Government should take on board the argument for full compensation, perhaps phased over time?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Conveniently, he leads me to my next point.

In the comprehensive spending review on 20 October 2010, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne—I do not always agree with him these days, but I certainly did at the time—remarked, in relation to Sir John Chadwick’s report:

“I accept the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman in full.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 960.]—

He did not say “partially”; it was not hedged in any way. He went on to talk about the relative losses and the amount of money, and said that the fair amount of funding at the time was £1.5 billion because of the state of the public finances.

In the financial statement on 20 March 2013, George Osborne went further and said that compensation should be provided to people who were not covered by the law—namely, the pre-’92 trapped annuitants. He said:

“We are not doing this because we are legally obliged to; we are doing it because, quite simply, it is the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 500, c. 941.]

I agree completely.

In the financial statement on 8 July 2015, George Osborne stated:

“We are also going to use the remaining funds available in our Equitable Life payment scheme, as it closes, to double the support that we give to those policyholders on pension credit who need this extra help most.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 333.]

Local Government Finance

Debate between James Morris and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend anticipates a matter that I was going to come to later. The outdated Barnett formula, which has transferred money to all parts of the country with no transparency whatsoever, must go and be replaced with a formula that delivers money on a fair and transparent basis that we can all see and understand. Even Lord Barnett himself cannot believe that his formula, which has existed for some 40 years, was not removed or transformed under 13 years of Labour Government, but they did not do it. That is one of the things that has to go.

We should deal with issues relating to the front-loading of reductions in expenditure. The reality is that the Government are having to deal with a deficit inherited from the Labour Government. We get maximum benefit from making public expenditure reductions early because we get four or five years-worth of reductions as a result. That is precisely the reason for doing it.

[James Morris]

As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, Labour was committed to reducing the structural deficit in four years, which implied that 20% cuts in public expenditure would have been applied to local government. However, we did not hear a single thing from the Opposition about what they would have cut.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between James Morris and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

If the Labour Government had acted when they should have done, £1.5 billion would have represented 100% compensation for everyone that had been so badly wronged. However, the dragging of feet over the past 10 years means that we are in the parlous state in which, ever day, people who should be due their compensation are dying and every day that we delay means that, sadly, more people will not receive their compensation.

[James Morris]

Many Members have talked about the moral imperative behind sorting out the situation, but does my hon. Friend agree that moral intervention requires practical Government action, which is what we are seeing today?

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. That is the clear duty of the coalition Government, and that is why I wholeheartedly praise the Treasury team for demonstrating such action.

There has been no greater issue than the tax treatment of the compensation that is due, and I congratulate once again the Treasury on that measure, because it will add to the compensation. Many people sitting at home will have been calculating their compensation less the amount of tax that they regularly pay. Now they know that they will receive a far bigger tax-free income, and that is something else of which we can be proud.

I would have much preferred more money to be provided. Would not we all? But would not we all rather be in a position whereby the Treasury was not almost bankrupt and we had not been left with a massive deficit? The all-party group will continue to ensure that, in this process, the Treasury will be able to communicate with all parliamentarians, and EMAG will be able to lobby to ensure that, when individuals begin to receive their payments, which will be the acid test, they feel satisfied that the wrong that has been done to them has been compensated. That is something of which we would all be proud. We can take great pride in the fact that the process is happening quickly, with purpose and transparency, and that the pledge that we all signed is being honoured. Some people may say, “It is not being honoured in full,” but it is, and clearly the economic circumstances of the day dictate what we can do.

As I said in an earlier intervention, we should revisit the position in five years’ time when the economy will have recovered and we will be in a much stronger position because of the coalition Government’s decisions. There may be a case then for reconsidering whether the people who took out policies but will not retire for five, 10, 15, even 25 years should receive a top-up. That is a reasonable proposal, and it is sensible for the coalition Government to consider it.

I commend the Bill to the House. I support it 101%, and the Treasury team are to be congratulated not only on what they have done, but on the clear answers that they have given to the points that have been made as we have considered the Bill in detail.