---

Equitable Life

Indeed, that is absolutely true, but let us hope that it is not true on this final—or what we hope will be this final—occasion. The human impact of this fiasco has been absolutely terrible. Mr. and Mrs. Littlewood of my constituency wrote to me in 2008, describing that human impact. They said:""Personally our pension payments have been sabotaged to the effect that we are now always, even more, conscious of the cost of ""daily expenses and costs… The annual payments we put into E. L. to achieve a modest pension out of our earnings have been ravaged."" That is the effect. Like many others, their prospects of a happy and modestly prosperous retirement, reasonably free from financial worries, which is what most of would hope for at least, have been wrecked. It is pretty difficult for many Equitable Life policyholders to bear that situation, for a number of reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out, there have been bail-outs for those in cases such as Barlow Clowes, when the current Prime Minister championed the rights of investors. It therefore seems ironic that, on his watch, we have not been able to expedite similar compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. Secondly, in the Government's view the bail-out culture apparently extends to wealthy bankers who have brought this country to the brink of economic collapse, but not to hard-working pensioners who have done nothing wrong. They simply and prudently tried to save for their retirement, but they have ended up in a much worse situation. Finally, because there is a clear risk that the Chadwick report may not lead to an agreed resolution, the prospect of an actual payment that helps people in their daily lives and with their current financial situation will recede still further into the middle distance. I urge the Government to accept a couple of requests. First, they should urgently look at the prospect of an interim compensation scheme. Government Front Benchers gave a pretty feeble answer earlier, and the idea that the Government are not willing to consider such a scheme because there might be a small overpayment to some Equitable Life policyholders, many of whom have been waiting 10 years for any payment at all in compensation for their losses, will sound rather hollow to all policyholders, but that is a risk that the Government ought to be prepared to take. Indeed, there may not even be a real risk, because, as other Members have pointed out, EMAG's estimate of the cost of that compensation scheme is £200 million—a fraction of the compensation that is likely to be paid in the final analysis. Secondly, even at this late stage, I urge the Government to clarify urgently the remit given to Sir John Chadwick and express the hope that his recommendations will propose compensation in the spirit of the ombudsman's report—in a way that rebuilds a level of confidence among policyholders and offers some prospect of justice at the end of this whole long-drawn-out and sorry business.