Equitable Life Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Equitable Life

Denis MacShane Excerpts
Thursday 22nd July 2010

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Hoban Portrait Mr Hoban
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes two important points. She referred to the cap of 20 to 25%, which is Sir John’s assessment and proposal. I am conscious that others, including EMAG, have different views about what the proportion should be, but they accept the principle that some policyholders would have stayed with Equitable Life. Her second point, about the estates of deceased policyholders, is very important. I have given the commission wide terms of reference, with two exceptions. First, it must take into account the estates of deceased policyholders—that is fair. Secondly, there should be no means-testing.

Denis MacShane Portrait Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

The Financial Secretary’s fair and measured statement might be taken more seriously had he not, in opposition, belaboured the Labour Government and made wild promises about paying full compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. Does he understand that people thought—

None Portrait Hon. Members
- Hansard -

Where’s your tie?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. The question of his neckwear or lack of it is of no concern to the House. I just want to hear what he has to say.

Denis MacShane Portrait Mr MacShane
- Hansard - -

Mr Speaker, I have just had extensive root canal treatment and cannot tighten anything around my neck—I am terribly sorry—but I can open my mouth. Does the Financial Secretary understand that Equitable Life policyholders will feel betrayed? When will the Government stop doing endless U-turns?

Mark Hoban Portrait Mr Hoban
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman wears a tie, it does not add to the sense that he makes when asking questions. We made it clear in opposition that we accepted the ombudsman’s findings the day she published her report, unlike the Labour Government, who took six months to do that. We accepted the recommendations that compensation should be for relative loss and that account should be taken of the impact on the public purse. We have been consistent in that approach. I do not believe that the Conservative party has U-turned in any way. We have stuck to our commitment and made more progress on the matter in the past two months than the Labour party made in two years.