---

Equitable Life

Yes, absolutely. Far more transparency is needed throughout the process. We saw what happened when the Government decided to bail out the individuals, councils and other institutions who had invested in an Icelandic bank—Icesave. Huge amounts of effort went into supporting those individuals and organisations. I simply do not understand why that level of urgency and commitment has not been forthcoming on this issue. I pay tribute to Mr. Paul Braithwaite of EMAG. He is a gentleman with whom I have interacted repeatedly on this issue and I pay tribute to his hard work and dedication in pursuing this matter. He has sent me a few points which I should like to raise in the debate. EMAG issued a press release, explaining why""we are walking away in disgust, after active engagement for months acting in good faith, from 'The Chadwick process'."" I would highlight the phrase,""walking away in disgust"." The word "disgust" is critical.""Careful evaluation of his convoluted 109-page third interim report…demonstrates he's not listening to any representations other than those of the Treasury—his paymasters—and he's merely re-trying the case which was done independently and well by the parliamentary ombudsman. It's as if the judicial review hadn't happened."" There Mr. Braithwaite makes a critical point. We have had the adjudication of the parliamentary ombudsman. As various hon. Members have stated, we have repeatedly rehearsed the arguments as to what should be done, and yet in my opinion the Chadwick process is a classic way of kicking things into the long grass. Mr. Nick Bellord, an EMAG director, says:""In summary, 'The Chadwick Process' has been a shameful charade to which EMAG is surprised that a retired Appeal Court Judge (albeit hand picked) has lent his name. The regulators allowed a Ponzi fraud to develop over nine years. The Treasury fathered and nursed a fraudulent reassurance treaty when the crisis arose in 1999 and ever since has not failed to stoop to every kind of cover-up, delay and low trick to escape the full truth being revealed—it is not just the failure to pay any compensation after a further decade—but the hiding of disgraceful behaviour by a major Office of State."" Everyone who has spoken in this debate has spoken about the need to continue with the Chadwick process. The Minister challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) as to what the Conservative party would do, should we enter office after the next election. Interestingly, it would appear that there is no alternative now, given where we are, but to continue with the Chadwick process. But so frustrated and demoralised are members of EMAG—the key words that I want to use are "frustrated" and "demoralised"—that Mr. Braithwaite says in his note to me:""The right thing to do is to disregard the remit given to Sir John, although keeping the database developed by the Treasury's actuaries, establish the independent tribunal as recommended by the parliamentary ombudsman and commit to the compensation process that the parliamentary ombudsman proposed. That's an urgent priority for the next Parliament."" So I am getting from Mr. Braithwaite a slightly different understanding of the situation, because I believe that he and other members of EMAG have lost so much confidence in the Chadwick process that even at this stage they may be prepared to throw it out and go back to the parliamentary ombudsman's findings. I am very heartened that my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has stated that the Leader of the Opposition is determined to sort this matter out very quickly should we be elected to office. I suggest to my colleagues on the Front-Bench that, should the Conservative party be elected to office in May, an urgent meeting should be set up with EMAG at the earliest opportunity so that we can work with it constructively to sort the process out once and for all.