Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Heaton-Jones and Crispin Blunt

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I will be extraordinarily brief because not much more needs to be said. The House’s view is settled and its will is clear. Those at the other end of this building are asking us to consider effectively a rehash of new clause 18, which this House debated at length, analysed and rejected. We defeated that new clause on Report prior to Third Reading. We do not need to rehearse those arguments.

Members of all parties are absolutely right to say that victims need to be at the centre. I am confident that the Secretary of State and his team, through some of the concessions that have been introduced today, even at this late stage, have the victims at the centre of their thoughts.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I will not because time is so brief. The will of the House is settled and the other place should not throw the Bill back at us. We have made the decision and we just need to get the measure on the statute book.

Equitable Life

Debate between Peter Heaton-Jones and Crispin Blunt

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

rose—

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me return to a point that I made earlier. He refers to the Treasury paying compensation. The Treasury has no money; it is all taxpayers’ money. We need to strike a careful balance. There must be fairness, not only to Equitable Life policyholders but to taxpayers in general, because it is they who will ultimately have to foot the bill for any compensation.

[Crispin Blunt]

May I briefly make the point that there is a taxpayer interest here? If the savings culture is undermined, the taxpayers’ interests are absolutely at stake. We need people to invest in pensions to ensure that they are not dependent on the taxpayer in their retirement.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

That is a good point, and I do not think that it is wholly at odds with the point that I was seeking to make.

I shall not delay the House for much longer. We all recognise that Equitable Life policyholders have found themselves in an impossible position—and, again, I pay tribute to all the work that they have done—but it should also be recognised that asking the taxpayer to provide £2.6 billion of compensation, if that is indeed the figure, is a big ask. Let me say to the Minister that that I acknowledge that balance, and I hope that we can find a way along what is a difficult path. I welcome the Treasury’s assurance that it will entertain all submissions from Members of Parliament, members of EMAG and members of the public, and will keep the matter under careful consideration so that we can resolve it in a way that will satisfy both Equitable Life policyholders and the interests of the wider taxpayer.