Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a new Member, I have come to this issue afresh as a result of the contact I have had with the victims of this situation. I know that my predecessor also took up their cause. I have to say that, having read through as many of the reports as I could—they are certainly extremely lengthy and extremely difficult—I have come to the conclusion that the previous Government were wrong in their approach. I think they took the wrong road and I am not afraid to say so.

Clearly, the management of Equitable Life were also culpable, and it is highly regrettable that we are in a situation where that organisation is not in a position to compensate its customers who were so badly let down by its practices. It is equally clear, however, that there was maladministration and regulatory failure throughout the 1990s. Before we get into too much point scoring on the issue, that was obviously on the watch of Governments both Conservative and Labour.

What my constituents are now asking me—having read the Minister’s statements in July, which concerned them greatly; I am sure they are no clearer today—is whether the Government are using the Chadwick calculations, which reduce compensation for loss by 90%, with a possible further reduction following the spending review. Is that what is being followed or not? I am no clearer about that today, so I cannot answer that question for them. If it is to be followed, that is not what EMAG has been fighting for or what EMAG understood to be the position promised by both constituent parts of this coalition Government.

It is highly convenient for the Minister to hide behind what has become this Government’s theme tune—everything has to come second to deficit reduction, which is all the fault of the previous Government. It is too easy to sing that song continually, so I am going to take this opportunity—briefly, in view of what Mr Deputy Speaker has said—to say that we do not accept that statement of the situation. In our view, we are not deficit deniers. The last Government took steps to stimulate the economy and save our banks from collapse—something that at least one part of the coalition Government accepted at the time was the right thing to do, and several times said so. As a result, yes, when we left office, there was a deficit; equally, however, unemployment was considerably lower than had originally been predicted when the recession began. The deficit was actually reducing under the Labour Government.

We believe that the current Government’s plans are wrong, that they place recovery at risk, and that it is not necessary to reduce the deficit at such breakneck speed. That may seem to constitute a diversion from the debate, but I think it important to restate it, because the Minister and many other speakers on the Government Benches have raised the subject of the financial position.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Did not the ombudsman recommend that the compensation scheme should take account of the state of the public finances? My constituents tell me that that they are happy to accept reductions that are in line with other reductions in public expenditure, but what are completely unacceptable are the reductions envisaged by Chadwick, which go far beyond that.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree. The people who have come to see me have said much the same. They have spoken of the possibility of staged payments and discussed how that arrangement could be affordable, but they have made it clear that what they do not accept is Chadwick.

At least one intervention and, I think, some speeches from the Government Benches have suggested that the Government will go beyond Chadwick and take wider issues into account, which suggests more than the £500 million or thereabouts mentioned by Chadwick. If that is so, I am not sure why it is still necessary to talk constantly about the spending review. Does not discussing the review all the time, and hinting that the Chadwick recommendations will be followed, suggest that there will be less rather than more? We need to know the answer to that question.

During the election campaign, having considered the matter and read a number of documents—I have read many more since—I pledged support for EMAG. I would have held hard to that support had my party still been in power, and if it were in power I would be saying the same thing now. However, I have questions to ask. What compensation is being promised? Is it simply the £400 million to £500 million mentioned by Chadwick, and if it is not, will it be more or less? Blaming the last Government may make for good political knockabout, but it leaves those who have suffered loss little the wiser. We and they need some real answers, and we need to work together.