Equitable Life (Payments) Bill — Clause 1 — Payments — 10 Nov 2010 at 14:45

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.

The Government has accepted there were regulatory failings with respect to Equitable Life. The Equitable Life (Payments) Bill[1][2] is intended to allow compensation to be paid[3].

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[4]:

  • 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.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con254 (+1 tell) 8186.3%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 47 (+1 tell)018.7%
LDem46 (+1 tell) 0 (+1 tell)084.2%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 5083.3%
Total:300 75159.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by name

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

John BaronBasildon and BillericayConaye
Andrew BinghamHigh PeakConaye
Bob BlackmanHarrow EastConaye
David DavisHaltemprice and HowdenConaye
Mike FreerFinchley and Golders GreenConaye
Richard FullerBedfordConaye
Gordon HendersonSittingbourne and SheppeyConaye
Stephen LloydEastbourneLDemtellaye
Craig WhittakerCalder ValleyConboth
Sarah WollastonTotnesConaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive