Equitable Life

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.

Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.

Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.

Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:

“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”

I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I want to highlight the case of my constituent, Mary, an ex-machinist, and her husband, an ex-electrician’s mate. They worked all their lives contributing to our society and economy for decades and opted to invest a substantial amount of money in a scheme—an Equitable Life scheme. Due to years of negligence by the company and different Governments, the money was snatched away. Sadly, Mary’s husband passed away last year and she was given only a small amount of compensation. Her husband is not here to see justice being served. Surely we must act for Mary and other Marys across the UK?

[Ian Blackford]

I wholly concur with my hon. Friend and her constituent. Other Members have made the point that there is a sense that the Government must act quickly because the policyholders are dying. We have a responsibility to deal with the problem in a timely manner.

I am conscious of time, so I will try to wrap up quickly. The 2008 report also stated that regulation was not implemented properly, meaning

“consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.

We understand that that involved previous Governments—the Minister will be pleased to hear that not even I would blame the current Government for this one—but we do have a responsibility to reflect on what has been said and what actions we should take as a consequence.

All the parties involved accepted the ombudsman’s second report and accepted the case for compensation. During the inquiry, EMAG told the ombudsman that it had calculated the loss for those investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable as against £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. The final conclusion from the ombudsman states:

“The government should establish and fund a compensation scheme. The aim of such a scheme would be to put those who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”

We have all reflected on what the Government did with the £1.5 billion, but it is the issue of fairness that we keep coming back to.

This has already been mentioned, but it is worth stating again that before the 2010 election, the main Equitable Life policyholders’ action group, EMAG, lobbied MPs to seek support for compensation for its members. Perhaps as a result, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this brief comment:

“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”

It has been said today that the Government could not go beyond the £1.5 billion because of the financial circumstances at the time. Let us take this opportunity today to right that wrong and to plug some of that gap. I appeal to the Government to listen to all the points that have been made across the Chamber today and to do the right thing for the policyholders of Equitable Life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because the public finances remain in a very difficult state. Although the economy and our public finances have improved compared with where they were, money is still extremely tight.

We established a set of rules for the payments, based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings. The scheme was based on the assumption that all policyholders considered the incorrect regulatory returns when making their investment and would have decided not to invest in Equitable Life had those returns been correct. Obviously, those are quite conservative assumptions. The Government used the ombudsman’s findings to calculate the resulting individual loss by assessing the Equitable Life returns against those of comparator companies. That led to an assessment of the loss from Government maladministration of £4.1 billion.

Despite the constraints facing the public purse, the 2010 spending review announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders. Out of that sum, following consultation, we decided to pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, this group of policyholders will receive an annual payment for life, and the actuarial assessment of those payments is that the Government will be making payments to this group well into the next decade and probably beyond.

The total cost of those payments is assessed to be around £625 million—though that is dependent on how long policyholders live. Importantly, the £100 million contingency fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred, is an accounting provision to provide a safety net in case the annuitants live longer than the central forecast. The remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro-rata to other policyholders on the advice of an independent commission, and that resulted in a figure of 22.4 pence in the pound of their relative loss.

Of course I know that that was deeply disappointing to many, but these were difficult decisions that were taken in the light of the position of the public finances. As I said just now in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), public finances remain in a very difficult position, and we have to take decisions in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.

[Margaret Ferrier]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I will make some progress, as time is short.

[Margaret Ferrier]

On that very point—

[Damian Hinds]

I will take the point.

[Margaret Ferrier]

With the Government preparing to usher in the successor to the Trident nuclear weapon system, which is estimated to cost £167 billion, I call into question the Cabinet’s priorities. If the Government can find money for that, they can find money to pay Equitable Life policyholders.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady’s definition of “on that very point” has a degree of elastic in it.

The motion notes that the ombudsman recommended in her report that policyholders should be put back in the position that they would have been in, had Government maladministration not occurred. What the ombudsman went on to say just after this recommendation, however, is that it was appropriate also to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of payments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

What recent assessment has the Chancellor made of the performance of the UK Guarantees scheme? When it was launched, the Treasury said in a press release that it would

“dramatically accelerate major infrastructure investment”.

The only thing that has dramatically accelerated since then is the national debt under a Tory Chancellor who has missed every target that he set himself. Will he please acknowledge at least one of his failures?

[Greg Hands]

The UK Guarantees scheme has already been approved for eight projects, including the Mersey Gateway bridge, the northern line extension, and Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It has not always been necessary, and a further 18 projects worth almost £9 billion have been supported without the need for a guarantee.

HMRC Office Closures

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

On 12 November, HMRC made its “Building our Future: location strategy” announcement. As far as I am concerned, that is the precursor to the end of 50 years of my constituency’s links with the civil service as a major public employer. More than 2,500 hard-working, committed, loyal and productive staff at four sites will be affected by the announcement, of whom almost 700 are my constituents. Many of them are my friends, and many of them work in specialist and complex areas of investigation and administration. Regrettably, I found out about the detail—I use the word “detail” very loosely—in a very short letter from the chief executive. It was sent at 2.14 pm on 12 November, which was when Parliament was in recess. It said:

“I am writing to let you know that HMRC has today announced the next step in our ten-year modernisation programme to create a tax authority fit for the future, committing to high quality jobs and the creation of 13 new regional centres serving every region and nation in the UK.”

Members should consider how it feels to tell that to the hundreds of people who will lose their jobs, and to the thousands who will be moved out of my town centre. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry knew about the change before I did, and that is disrespectful not to me, but to the thousands of people in my constituency who are affected.

On reading the letter, it almost felt as if I should be grateful to HMRC for continuing to employ people anywhere to collect tax, and as if the service was expanding rather than contracting. I do not know how it managed to do that, but it did.

As I understand it, almost 170 offices will be closing, and they will be replaced by 13 regional centres and four specialist sites over the next five years, although some existing sites will remain open for longer. By 2021, HMRC will be operating out of just 35 locations. For staff in Bootle, the news is particularly shocking.

Litherland House is expected to close in 2018-19, followed by the Triad tax office and St John’s House in 2019-20. Comben House will also close. Those closures will have a significant and, in many cases, devastating impact on large numbers of people, staff and families. The implication in the letter is that staff should be grateful for having a job, even if it has a major effect on their lives, which is an absolute disgrace.

Many staff will face additional costs, with car parking charges and so on, and a detrimental effect on their family lives. They will have to travel to a regional centre, the location of which they have not yet been told. HMRC has announced that it will move to these regional centres, but it will not say where those centres will be. It will be devastating news wherever it is if it is not in the centre of my town. Many questions must be asked, but before I ask some of them, let me just quote Accountancy Live, which is a web-based professional site. It says:

Tax advisers and professional bodies are sceptical about whether HMRC’s plans to close 137 offices…cut real estate costs and save £100m, will deliver improvements in customer service levels, amid concerns that the changes could stretch the tax department to breaking point.”

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cuts will put HMRC under even more pressure at a time when more resources are needed to militate against the ongoing problems that both HMRC and Concentrix are causing? Numerous constituents have contacted me, suffering from the inadequacies of both departments, and I am sure that those problems will only be exacerbated by the cuts.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a fantasy to suggest that, by closing all these offices, we will be able to collect more tax and to tackle fraud.

Let me put a few questions to the Minister. When will the locations of the new regional centres be announced? Has an equality impact assessment been carried out on all the areas affected, particularly the four sites in my constituency? When did HMRC establish which sites were to close, and why was the decision not subject to consultation with Members of Parliament, trade unions, the Treasury Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee? Will the impact of additional costs be factored into the departmental deals, as there has been a pay freeze for God knows how long? What level of community or local business consultation has taken place ahead of the announcements? As far as I am concerned, absolutely none has taken place. Have the following losses to HMRC been taken into account? What about redundancies, income tax, local business tax, increase in jobseeker’s allowance, income support claims, national insurance contributions? The list goes on.

In my constituency specifically, what will happen to the 136 benefits and credits staff currently based at the Triad? When Litherland House closes, how will the other Bootle offices accommodate the staff? What will be the cost of the temporary building adjustments needed until 2020? What will be the cost of altering the software in order to move profiles around sites during the transition period? The questions go on, but we have had not one answer. I demand answers to those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I shall take that as an early representation for next year’s Budget. We have been able to help by reducing beer duty and ending the beer duty escalator that was putting pubs out of business. Other measures, such as those on apprenticeships and the employment allowance, are also helping the pub industry which is such a big employer of young people in our country.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The Scottish renewables sector supports more than 11,000 jobs, as well as contributing to a sustainable economy. Will the Chancellor please explain his reasoning for the removal of the climate change levy exemption for renewables, and tell the House whether he plans to start charging alcohol duty on soft drinks next?

[Mr Osborne]

I can certainly rule out the latter point. The point about the renewables levy is that it was introduced before the framework that we now have in place to support long-term investment in renewable energy through the levy control framework and the renewables obligation. We found that a third of the money, which after all comes from the electricity bills paid by the people we represent in Parliament, was going to overseas generators, so it was not really a fair approach. The approach we are taking now—supporting long-term investment in renewables and building up the UK industry—is the right one.