Proceeding contribution from Fabian Hamilton (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Equitable Life (Payments) Bill.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Yes, of course the amendment would attract far more support if there was a net zero cost. However, this is an important moral issue. Many of my hon. Friends and other Members know my views, for example, on the Trident replacement, which I know has now been shelved for a while, and on various schemes that take a huge amount of capital expenditure. The sum that we are discussing now is relatively small. I believe there are other savings that may be made, particularly in defence spending, which could pay for this. That is a decision that the Government and the two parties that make up the coalition will have to grapple with, but I believe that the policyholders look to us to ensure that the justice they have been promised is delivered. It is a moral obligation, and it overrides many of the other areas of expenditure to which any Government are committed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 518 c297
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Financial services Insolvency Equitable Life Assurance Society Pensioners Payments Equitable Life Ex-gratia Payment Scheme Review Ex gratia payments National Savings and Investments
- Legislation
- Equitable Life (Payments) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:20:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679152
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679152
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679152