Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Work and Pensions
Martin Rhodes
Main Page: Martin Rhodes (Labour - Glasgow North)Department Debates - View all Martin Rhodes's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend, because what happened with Equitable Life meant the difference between a comfortable retirement and a struggling retirement, as his constituent, and constituents of every other Member in this room, will know full well.
The moneys from investing in Equitable Life policies were intended to provide security in old age—to pay household bills, to fund care and to reduce dependence on family members and the taxpayer—but the financial losses that people suffered in very many cases, as my hon. Friend points out, fundamentally changed their retirement. It has meant struggling with everyday expenses, it has prevented planned support for children and grandchildren, and it has meant facing later life with far less independence than anticipated. For some, it has led to the loss of the family home and to depression, stress and anxiety—there are plenty of examples of that. Of course, many feel intense guilt for having invested their family savings with the most respected, the longest-standing and, supposedly, the safest pension company at the time only to see it fall apart and dissolve.
The Government of the day argued that the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation was fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. Of course, public money must always be spent responsibly and the interests of taxpayers must always be considered. However, I think most people would agree that redress of just 22% of someone’s acknowledged losses is not fair—far from it—particularly when the state has accepted responsibility for losses caused by its own failures. I expect most people would think there is an undeniably compelling case to provide full redress.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
A constituent of mine, who is now 76, changed jobs around the time of the collapse and was able to move his pension into a local authority pension scheme, although the transfer value took a 26% hit. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent that there must be greater transparency on this issue and that we must have meaningful reform of financial regulation, so that the experience of my constituent and of so many others is not repeated?
Fabian Hamilton
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I will elaborate on that in a few moments.