Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

John Pugh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Like other hon. Members present, I have been lobbied by a considerable number of constituents. Let me be clear: had Labour won the general election, we would by now be implementing the Chadwick recommendations and people would be receiving payments. What I find so irritating is the extraordinarily cynical, pre-election tactics that were adopted by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in an attempt to garner additional support. It is no good Government Members referring to the country’s financial situation and using the comprehensive spending review as cover for their inaction, because when they signed up to those pledges, they knew very well what the financial situation was. That simply will not wash.

The Opposition have been accused of showing “synthetic anger” and I have heard Government Members congratulate their Front Benchers, including the Minister. Members have said how they trust the Minister and their Front-Bench team. Before the election, one of the most vociferous cheerleaders of the pledge to pay a more generous settlement to the Equitable pension holders was the Minister himself, who regrettably is not in his seat.

I call on Members on the Government Benches to look at the Bill before us. It is extremely thin, and some Members’ contributions seemed to recognise that fact. It is clear from the terms of the Bill that the Government are dragging their feet on the issue. There is no detail on the criteria for payments, there will be no independent appeal process, and there is no timetable for payments.

Only yesterday I received a letter from EMAG, which stated:

“EMAG welcomes legislation to enable payments to Equitable Life sufferers.

However, EMAG is alarmed about the following:

The continuing reliance by the Treasury on Sir John Chadwick’s advice, despite the clear view of the Ombudsman that it is ‘an unsafe and unsound basis on which to proceed’.

There is a mismatch between the formal acceptance of all the ombudsman’s recommendations by the new government and the Treasury’s dogged determination to ignore the PO and build upon Chadwick’s advice, seemingly to provide a phony justification for derisory payments.

The lack of a proper comprehensive assessment of ‘relative losses’ based on all of the PO’s findings.

The inappropriate inclusion of Chadwick’s work as the central building block in the terms of reference for the independent payment commission.”

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

rose—

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

rose—