Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Tom Tugendhat and David Davis(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Last week, Nigel Farage publicised the cancellation of his bank account under the politically exposed persons regulation, but he is only the latest of a number of people to have had their lives wrecked by that regulation. Recently, Lords in the other place tried to correct the policy, but with only partial success, because, I understand, of pushback from the Home Office and the security services. Will the Minister explain why that is and what he will do about it?
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I am delighted to be asked a question. Yesterday, the Treasury and the Home Office came together and agreed various things that were announced in the House of Lords: the PEPs agreement. Such a closure on political grounds, if that is indeed what has happened—after all, we have only the allegation of it at this point—should, therefore, be completely unacceptable. PEPs is there to prevent the corrupt use of banking facilities by politicians in corrupt regimes. It is not there to silence individuals who may hold views with which we may or may not agree.
Equitable Life
Debate between Tom Tugendhat and David Davis(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I hope they will take it in the right way when I say that their continued presence here after a decade gives me an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. Having spent a couple of years’ penance on the Front Bench, I come back to find that, despite their sterling efforts, the issue is still before us.
The Equitable Life scandal is one of the greatest failures, perhaps the greatest failure, of public oversight and regulation in modern times, so it was the right decision to act in 2010. But, sadly, to act only partially was a failure of moral leadership, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) intimated.
The ombudsman’s report in 2008 was unambiguous, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East said, in calling for all those affected by injustice and maladministration from 1990 onwards to receive full compensation. The chairman of Equitable Life himself said that the report was inarguable. The report made no distinction between post-1992 and pre-1992 investors, and nor did anyone else—not the victims, not Equitable Life, not the ombudsman and not the Public Administration Committee. The Government’s rationale was that people who invested before 1992 were not affected by the scandal. Well, I am afraid that I completely disagree. These were long-term investments that were affected by ongoing and long-running maladministration. They were affected by the continuing failings of both Equitable Life and the regulators. Moreover, as we have heard, nearly all the pre-1992 cases involved some of the oldest and most vulnerable victims—they were also probably the poorest—who have so far received only a paltry sum of money. If the state fails to regulate properly, it inevitably forces that cost on to the consumer, and it is incumbent on the Government to make that right—and make it right in full.
The ombudsman was clear that there were fundamental failings by the then Department of Trade and Industry, the Government Actuary’s Department and the Financial Services Authority. The truth is that they knew, for most of the time, that this was a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has described it as such and we should understand that Ponzi schemes are frauds—it is straightforward and simple. The Government failed to ensure that accurate returns were in the public domain; they failed to take ample opportunities to step in; and they failed to use their full range of powers. So, frankly, it seems to me that the Treasury plucked a cut-off date from thin air—there is no other way of describing it.
The ombudsman called on the Government to compensate the victims fully: to put them in the position they would have been in if the scandal had not occurred. That is the test: where would they have been if this scandal had not occurred? Leaving aside the pre’92 victims, that is a far cry from the 22p in the pound that has, in effect, been paid to many of those whom we have chosen to compensate. As has been said, this ultimately comes down to an issue of public trust. These victims were not wealthy investors. Typically, in my constituency at least, they were retired factory workers, teachers, nurses and small businessmen, who believed they were setting themselves up for at least a tolerable and reasonable retirement—I was tempted to say a comfortable one. That is a perfectly honourable, reasonable and laudable ambition for all our citizens.
As my hon. Friend made clear, the Conservative party promised in our 2010 manifesto to compensate the victims—not partially compensate them or compensate some, but compensate them. Like him, I was a signatory to that—indeed, I was heavily involved in getting it to happen. So I feel personally committed to it, too. It was right there in black and white, and it is there with my signature on it, just like everybody else’s. A failure to right this wrong will only serve to further undermine the public’s trust in politics and financial institutions
The Government say, or said then, that this comes down to an issue of “affordability”, but affordability is always a decision of priority: what comes first? The Government did not say that they did not have any money—they said they did not have enough money. What is more important than this: keeping our word, supporting the poor, upholding an institution that is important to people in the future, as well as these victims? All those things make this issue incredibly important. So in my view the affordability argument was flawed in the first place, but that was the position. Now, even that falls down, because we are supposedly, as the Prime Minister tells us, at the end of the era of austerity—good. That should be good for every citizen, but it should be good first and foremost for those who have done the right thing, for those who have looked after themselves and for those who reasonably could have expected the Government to protect them.