Equitable Life

Debate between Kate Green and Bob Blackman

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and then move on to the key points I want to make before winding up.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), on all the work they have done. I should declare an interest, in that I had an Equitable Life policy. I lost a very small amount of money, but over 2,000 of my constituents will have lost much more.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in addition to the financial benefits the Treasury would draw from money recirculating, doing such a thing would also mean that those former policyholders who are now having to look to other financial instruments to raise cash—such as equity release, which is equally inappropriate for them—would be protected from having to undertake other risky financial measures to sustain themselves in their old age?

[Bob Blackman]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady; she makes a valid point.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Debate between Kate Green and Bob Blackman

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I draw to the attention of the House my interest as a policyholder—mercifully, a very small one—in Equitable Life. I lost a few hundred pounds, but others lost very much larger sums. I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. He has mentioned the lack of information accessible to the public. Does he agree that one of the most shocking things was the fact that, right up to the end, advertising continued to encourage people to put their savings into Equitable Life? I remember distinctly seeing large advertisements on the tube in 2000, weeks before the company went down.

[Bob Blackman]

Quite clearly, there was irresponsibility. I would absolve the current leadership of Equitable Life from that, because it has been co-operative in every way. It has identified the policyholders and assisted the Government and EMAG to ensure that everyone could be compensated. That does not apply to the previous management, however.

Let us turn to the current position. I applaud the Government for honouring the pledge to provide compensation to Equitable Life policyholders immediately after the 2010 general election. At that point, £1.5 billion was set aside to provide compensation. That was too little, and there is still a debt of honour, as I have said.

There are effectively four sets of people involved. The with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 39,858, have been paid out £336 million. The pre-’92 trapped with-profits annuitants were left out of the scheme quite deliberately, because the Government took the view that anyone who took out a policy before 1 September 1992 was outside the compensation limit. That, to me, was wrong, because those people could not have known that this scandal was going on. But I am delighted that the then Chancellor provided an ex-gratia payment of £5,000 to 9,000 people and that he extended it to £10,000 for those on pension credit.

We also have the non-with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 1,000,605. They have received, thus far, £749 million, but that represents only 22.4% of their losses. That is an arbitrary number. If the Government have accepted that they are responsible for the pensions of those individuals, it cannot be right that they receive an arbitrary percentage merely because that is the balance left of the money that was set aside. All I ask is for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to say that the Government will keep that under review and that, as the economy recovers, the compensation should be paid out.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the Bill is part of a strategy. It is not the sole basis of this approach. Under the new doctrines operating in this Parliament, new duties on local authorities mean new money for local government. I hope to hear that from the Minister later on.

After the checks, if someone is priority homeless the local authority will house them, probably in emergency accommodation, which is expensive to the local authority and not very suitable for the people who have to be housed. The non-priority homeless are told to go out and sleep on the streets, on a park bench, or in a doorway, and then they may—may—be picked up by a charity under the No Second Night Out programme. That is an absolute national disgrace. When employment is at the highest level ever and we have a relatively low level of unemployment, having one single person sleeping rough on our streets is a national disgrace that we must combat.

For 40 years, we in this House have forced local authorities to ration the help that they give. I passionately believe that people enter public service to deliver a service to the public, not to deny them a service.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this important Bill. He points to the fact that local authorities will make an assessment and some people will be placed in temporary accommodation as a result. Does he agree, however, that far too many very vulnerable people still end up sleeping rough, sofa surfing or sleeping on the streets, including, for example, people discharged from hospital or from custody?

[Bob Blackman]

That is precisely why I am introducing this Bill. Anyone who is sleeping rough is extremely vulnerable. They are liable to be mugged and to be attacked. Women are likely to be raped. Horrible things happen to people who are forced to sleep rough. I do not want to see that happen in this society any longer.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

As I said, I hope to get clarity at the conclusion of the debate, because this is clearly a problem. I would like these illicit text messages and such like to be criminalised, because they are clearly an abuse of the law. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, they should be criminalised already under the Data Protection Act, because they constitute an abuse of personal data.

I seek clarity on a third issue: the effect on claims management companies of banning referral fees. I sought advice from Accident Advice Helpline, which is based in my constituency. It informs me that only one in six of its 36,000 cases last year were referred to solicitors, with the rest being screened out. Of those, 70% led to a settlement, with 15% dropped owing to “no involvement”. I could go through all the details of the data, but the reality is that Accident Advice Helpline screens the cases, which costs money. If Accident Advice Helpline does not do that, other solicitors will have to do it, at a cost to themselves. I would therefore like some clarity on what the effect will be and how it is proposed that those companies will be funded so that they do not fall foul of the regulations.

[Kate Green]

I, too, am keen to ask the Minister some questions, similar to those put by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

I completely share other hon. Members’ concerns about securing much better protection for the consumer, but given that the amendments have been introduced rather hastily I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a level playing field for different business types and, in particular, that access to independent legal advice from independent solicitors will be protected for claimants.

I therefore seek a fuller explanation from the Minister of how it is intended that referral fees will be defined. Specifically, to what extent does he see marketing activity by solicitors and others as covered—or not covered—by the provisions? For example, as has already been suggested, if a high street solicitor takes on some work, but realises that he or she does not have the expertise to pursue the case and therefore refers it to another solicitor and arranges some form of fee sharing, how is it intended that this should be treated under the provisions? Some solicitors have grouped together to pool their marketing budgets. Is the intention of the Minister’s amendments to outlaw pooled marketing completely or to cover it in regulation? It would be useful to have some clarification on that.

I welcome what the Minister said in answer to my earlier intervention about alternative business structures, but I am curious to know what his assessment is of the possibility that more and more large claims management companies will seek to handle all such business in-house and will stop using the services of other legal firms or legal experts. Has he made any assessment of the possibility of the provision of such services being concentrated in a way that reduces consumer choice and independent advice, and will he say what steps he might take to address that?