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.

Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make what I understand will be the final maiden speech of the day. I congratulate all those who have gone before me. There have been some excellent speeches and some fascinating stories. I am pleased to welcome so many women to the House, alongside myself, because it is extremely important to have them here. New Members learn a lot when they come to this place, such as learning to sit for several hours to make their maiden speech. Another slightly bizarre tradition is that of jumping up and down, which I have decided must be to keep us fit in what would otherwise be a very sedentary day.

My predecessor, Gavin Strang, was the MP for Edinburgh East for 40 years. I know that many Members will join me in paying tribute to his service to the House, his constituents and the country. He served in government under Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Tony Blair, and it is not just the length of his service that stands out. He is a man of principle and conviction, so much so that in his maiden speech in 1970 he eschewed the tradition of paying tribute to his predecessor and his constituency and launched into an attack on the Government of the day about selling weapons to apartheid-era South Africa. Gavin did not mellow with age. In recent years, he spoke against the Iraq war and the replacement of Trident. He won the respect of his colleagues and constituents by resisting the temptation to become a knee-jerk rebel, and that made his arguments all the stronger. I fear that it will be difficult for me to achieve Gavin’s length of service in this place, unless there are some advances in medicine, in relation to ageing, in the next 40 years, but I aspire to emulate his principled approach.

Edinburgh is a beautiful city, and I have the honour and privilege of representing many of its gems. Right at the heart of the constituency is Holyrood park with our very own volcano, Arthur’s Seat, but I assure any Transport Ministers present that it is safely extinct. On the coast lies Portobello beach, which featured recently in The Guardian supplement Travel as one of Europe’s best urban beaches. I should also mention Easter Road, the home of Hibernian football club, one of Edinburgh’s two Scottish premier league teams, but perhaps I should declare an interest as my husband is a season ticket holder. Other sporting venues include Scotland’s only swimming pool capable of hosting diving competitions, which is currently being refurbished for use in the 2014 Commonwealth games in Scotland.

In Edinburgh’s historic centre lies the royal mile, which has an abbey and a palace at its foot and Edinburgh castle at its head. Less well known is my constituency’s second castle, Craigmillar, which is reckoned much the superior by most children because they can run about and have so much fun in it. Edinburgh East also plays host to many Edinburgh festival venues. Places such as the Pleasance courtyard may be known to many here, as it seems to become an outpost of London for the month of August.

Appropriately for someone who is a lawyer, my patch includes all three levels of Edinburgh’s law courts, as well as Edinburgh university, which is one of the oldest universities not just in Scotland but in the UK. Neither is the constituency short of politicians as it houses both the city council buildings and the Scottish Parliament. Carrying out our 1997 manifesto commitment to establish a Scottish Parliament is something of which Labour can be proud.

East Edinburgh is not just a place of history and tourist attractions, but is home to many people who work hard in minimum wage jobs, or who have retired on little more than the basic state pension. In previous economic recessions, with the decline in the area’s traditional industries such as brewing and brick making, too many people became unemployed and sidelined on to incapacity benefit.

I supported the previous Government’s attempts to prevent people from being condemned to such low-income existences and to help them advance out of them. However, as I was knocking on doors in the last year, I became aware of the gulf that can exist between the theory of a policy initiative and its implementation. When it comes down to real people, things are rarely straightforward. One woman in her 50s, suffering from cancer and still receiving treatment, had been declared fit for work. She was far from being a long-term claimant—as she said herself, she had worked all her life and it felt like a slap in the face to be treated in that way.

We also have to be aware that there are people whose conditions fluctuate. They can be very well one day but hardly able to get out of bed the next. That is the story of one of my constituents: she had ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis—but she too was declared fit for work.

The introduction of the new employment and support allowance was expected to lead to around 50% of applicants being deemed unfit for work. In practice, only 32% have been so assessed and thus in need of support. Either there has been a great improvement in health, or there is something very wrong with the assessment process. The fact that so many appeals succeed suggests that there is something wrong. I regret to say that all that was happening on my party’s watch. In my campaign, I said that this would be one of the issues I would take up, regardless of who formed the Government. I believe that it is one of the primary roles of an elected Member to monitor where policy is not quite working out as we might hope.

It is worrying to have heard that the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wishes to accelerate the roll-out of the employment and support allowance, despite one of its architects admitting that the pilot has severe problems. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will temper his zeal with mercy.

My politics was formed and forged by my father, and I am particularly proud to represent the area in which he was born and brought up. In conclusion, I want to thank all the voters of Edinburgh East for giving me the opportunity to represent them in this place.