Equitable Life (Payments) Bill — Clause 1 — Payments — 10 Nov 2010 at 14:45
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted not to require payments to Equitable Life policyholders to be made irrespective of the date on which policies were taken out.
The majority of MPs voted not to require payments to Equitable Life policyholders to be made irrespective of the date on which policies were taken out.
No restrictions on the date policies were taken out were included in the Bill as introduced. The rejected amendment would have added a new clause apparently intended to ensure no restrictions were introduced when administering the compensation. The proposed new clause, which was rejected by MPs, read:
- '(2A) Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.'.
Labour MP Fabian Hamilton had proposed the amendment and explained his reasoning during debate:
- I tabled my amendment because, although I am well aware that the Bill is an enabling measure, I feel strongly that a group of Equitable Life policyholders has been unfairly excluded from the compensation scheme that the Government have put in place.
- ... The with-profits annuitants who took out annuities before the September 1992 cut-off date are as trapped as those who purchased them after that date and their incomes diminish each year. Having taken out policies that they believed would allow them to make ends meet in old age, they now face increasing poverty because Parliament did not act soon enough to prevent the collapse of Equitable. That is why we owe them the compensation that they deserve as much as the post-1992 with-profits annuitants.
-  Parliament webpage on the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
-  Text of Equitable Life (Payments) Bill as introduced
-  Explanatory Notes on the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
-  Fabian Hamilton MP, House of Common, 10th November 2010
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||254 (+1 tell)||8||1||86.3%|
|Lab||0||47 (+1 tell)||0||18.7%|
|LDem||46 (+1 tell)||0 (+1 tell)||0||84.2%|
|John Baron||Basildon and Billericay||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Andrew Bingham||High Peak||Con||aye|
|Bob Blackman||Harrow East||Con (front bench)||aye|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||aye|
|Mike Freer||Finchley and Golders Green||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Gordon Henderson||Sittingbourne and Sheppey||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Sarah Wollaston||Totnes||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Craig Whittaker||Calder Valley||Con (front bench)||both|
|Stephen Lloyd||Eastbourne||LDem (front bench)||tellaye|