Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. Unfortunately, as we know, many of the individuals affected by the scandal are deep into old age. They may be very vulnerable, and, regrettably, there are fewer and fewer of them every day. For every day that goes by without them receiving proper compensation, the scandal is maintained.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My hon. Friend just made an important point about the significance of London’s international reputation. That depends, in part, on the strength of our regulatory environment. Does it not follow, as a matter of both good policy and common decency, that when there is a massive regulatory failure, the Government should be seen to stand behind those who lose out as a consequence?

[Bob Blackman]

I absolutely agree with that comment. I want to say something about the commitments we have made, which are very important. As I have said, the former Chancellor accepted the reality of the situation at the Dispatch Box. He said:

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

Let us be clear about the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings at the time. There had been 10 years—a decade—of regulatory failure, which was responsible for the losses suffered by pensioners when Equitable Life collapsed. In her report, which was 2,872 pages long by the way, she recommended that the Government

“should restore complainants to the position they would have been in, had maladministration not occurred”.

I believe that we should ensure we honour the commitments we have made and honour the situation in law.

I note that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a former member of the all-party group and a strong supporter of justice for the Equitable Life policyholders. I know him to be an honourable man, and I know he will want to do the best he can for the people who have suffered such losses.

The ask today is very simple. The pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who are the most vulnerable group—I am afraid that, every day, fewer and fewer are with us any longer—should be compensated in full, even though that is outside the scope of the legislation. Full compensation for those individuals would cost the Government less than £100 million. For the people who have received compensation for 22.4% of their losses, a plan should be set out to enable them to receive full compensation. I am not expecting that to happen straightaway—it may take time—but those people should receive compensation as the economy recovers. We could have a plan so that, in line with the recovery of the economy, much more money is paid out. That would fair, reasonable and—dare I say?— equitable.

In conclusion, I look forward to my hon. Friend giving us some commitments and clear guidance on what the Treasury will do to assist people who invested and did the right thing. This House owes a debt of honour to those individuals, and those of us who support these honourable people will not rest until such time as they receive every penny piece of the compensation to which they are entitled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), both of whom deserve great credit for the work they have done. My hon. Friend also deserves credit for securing the debate. I would call both of them friends outside this Chamber. They have worked tirelessly on this issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East just said, the vast bulk of Equitable Life losers were modest people who had bought in to what successive Governments of all parties had told them was the right thing to do. They were told to save for their retirement, to put something aside, and that they would benefit thereafter. Why did they lose because of catastrophic errors by the company and a catastrophic error of regulation? The Government create the regulator and the regulatory system. The Government, ultimately, must bear the responsibility for that failure. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, but morally they must be prepared to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I have hitherto resisted the case for full compensation on the basis of two arguments. One of them was that if the returns were too good to be true, investors ought to have spotted that. However, I have begun to wonder whether that argument is sustainable, because if the benefits were too good to be true, the regulator should have spotted it. This is a regulated market in which ordinary investors ought to have had confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend is spot on about the gravity of the regulatory failure. It was not just the process—the nuts and bolts—that went wrong; there was a fundamental failure to see that something that had been put into the market should have been ringing alarm bells. That is a very important point. That is why the case that the Government should provide proper compensation is all the stronger. The superficially attractive argument that it was too good to be true so people acted at their own risk was put about quite early. It was also claimed that all those affected were lawyers—barristers and solicitors—consultants and the comfortable middle class. I have dozens of victims of Equitable Life in my constituency and most are modest people who had jobs that enabled them to put a little bit aside, which they did in good faith and were let down by the system. A Government-regulated system let them down. That is why the obligation is very strong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to EMAG’s work. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. I particularly pay tribute to my constituents, David Truran and Richard Collins among others, who galvanised our local group of Equitable Life victims. They work hard to keep people in their area, many of whom are elderly and quite frail, in the loop about what is happening. That is a valuable local service. As has been said, the information about the compensation scheme and the way it worked was less than user friendly, to put it mildly. There was a lack of transparency and it was sometimes difficult for people in difficult circumstances, in the latter years of their lives, to navigate the information. EMAG’s work, nationally and locally, to help them is important.

The moral case is overwhelming and I think that the Minister, given his background and experience, knows that. The coalition Government were right to move when the previous Government had sadly done nothing, and it is a fair point that something is better than nothing. However, that is not really a sound basis for policy, morally or in terms of good governance. Something was given, and circumstances now permit the Government to give more.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that policyholders do not regard what they are entitled to as compensation? They simply want back the money that they saved—their own money, which they put in to their long-term pension savings, believing it would be given back, with a reasonable return, when they retired and needed it.

[Robert Neill]

That is an entirely fair and proper point. We use “compensation” only in a technical sense rather than to reflect the morality of what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to describe the scheme as effectively a Ponzi scheme. In other jurisdictions, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as a fraud on the investors. They put in their money, lost out and the regulator that was supposed to protect them failed abysmally.

When the coalition Government introduced the compensation scheme, finances were difficult. Things have improved and it is not unreasonable to expect those people to be recompensed by more now. The distinction between pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants was at best arbitrary. Although the case is made in a legalistic, dry, desiccated-calculating-machine way, it does not hold water for anyone who examines it. I hope for a measure of human decency and a broad view of the impact on public confidence. The Government let themselves down somewhat with that arrangement, although it was better than nothing. Now we can do better and I urge the Government to do that.

As well as the moral case, there is a case to be made for the importance for this country of good governance in our financial services sector. I am a passionate advocate of Britain’s financial services; 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector. It is a massive earner for this country and a jewel in our economic crown. However, it succeeds because of its reputation for integrity, which is based on the strength of its regulatory structures. When there is a failure, which is not followed by proper redress for those who lose out, confidence in our financial sector is dented and damaged.

As we emerge from the European Union—hon. Members know I regret that, but that is where we are—the financial services sector’s international reputation will be all the more important. It is in our national self-interest to ensure that we are seen to be 100% behind those who invest prudently and sensibly in our financial institutions. Britain is a world leader in the insurance sector, but this failure has the potential to damage us and it will always be held against us unless we do something to get it right. Given the national benefit that the sector brings, doing justice to the Equitable Life losers would be a drop in the ocean financially. Perhaps even for that reason, as well as for our long-term national economic self-interest, if not out of moral decency, the Government will think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

I start by associating myself with the earlier comments about yesterday’s terrible events. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It is fair to say that their tireless work on this issue and their involvement in the all-party parliamentary group for justice for equitable life policyholders are of great importance to many of our constituents up and down the country. Hon. Members from across the House have done a great deal for their constituents on this matter. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I have listened carefully to the individual cases that have been mentioned. I am also grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government have done to address this long-standing issue.

This topic has a long and well-documented history, which I do not propose to go over in my limited time. Instead, I will focus on the action we have taken to make payments to the people affected, and these figures are well known. The ombudsman’s findings assess the loss from Government maladministration to be £4.1 billion, and it is worth noting that that is significantly more than the evaluation commissioned by the then Labour Government. That report, known as the Chadwick report, rejected some of the ombudsman’s findings and concluded that only £340 million should be paid to policyholders.

This Government, in contrast and despite the constraints facing the public purse, have agreed that £1.5 billion will be made available, tax free, for payments to eligible policyholders. We consulted carefully on how that £1.5 billion should be paid out and reached the conclusion that we must pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, that group will receive an annual payment for life, with the total cost of those payments assessed to be around £625 million. The £100 million contingency fund, which is often referred to, is to ensure provision for policyholders who exceed the life expectancy forecast. On the advice of an independent commission, the remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing a payment of some 22.4% of their relative loss. I recognise that, for many, that was disappointing, but it is about striking the right balance while also taking into account the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers.

The point about affordability was raised explicitly by the ombudsman in her report, in which she stated that it was appropriate to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of the payments. Indeed, the ombudsman has written to the all-party parliamentary group on Equitable Life about the level of funding and said that the Government’s decisions on affordability cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. I also understand it has been suggested that, as the economy improves, further funding should be made available to the payment scheme.

[Robert Neill]

I accept that the decision on funding is not incompatible with the ombudsman’s report, but that is not to say that the decision follows the spirit of the ombudsman’s report or that it is right.

[Simon Kirby]

I repeat that this is about striking the right balance between the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers, and I will cover that point in more detail as I proceed.

I was talking about further funding being made available to the scheme, but with debt at its highest level since the second world war, tackling the deficit and getting debt falling are challenges that call for long-term discipline, which is why we have no plans to reopen the payment scheme or to review its level of funding.