division_name: Opposition Day &#8212; [6(th) Allotted Day] &#8212; Equitable Life
motion: <p class="" pid="a.740.4/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a.740.4/2" pwmotiontext="yes">That this House notes that the Ombudsman published her report on Equitable Life in July 2008, that the Government did not make its response until January 2009, and that its rejection of some of her findings was successfully challenged in the High Court; believes that the delays caused by the Government since the publication of the Ombudsman's report have led to further and unnecessary hardship for Equitable Life's policyholders and have done further damage to the UK's savings culture; and calls on the Government to set a clear timetable for implementing the Ombudsman's recommendations and remedying the injustice suffered by policyholders.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.750.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the question and add:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a.750.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"recognises the vital role the Ombudsman plays in public life; reaffirms the duty of Parliament to support the office of the Ombudsman; notes that the High Court ruled that the Government's response to the Ombudsman's recommendations on Equitable Life, its establishment of an ex gratia payment scheme, and the terms of reference given to Sir John Chadwick were a rational response to the Ombudsman's report; notes that Sir John expects to produce his final advice in May; welcomes the Government's commitment to respond with details of a payment scheme within two weeks of receiving this advice; welcomes the Government's determination to establish a scheme administratively quicker and simpler to deliver than that envisaged by the Ombudsman; further notes that to abandon the Chadwick process so close to completion would add delay and hardship for policyholders; welcomes the Government's view that, while it cannot prejudge Sir John's final advice, there is a strong case for policyholders who have passed away to be included in the scheme and that it is neither desirable nor administratively feasible to means-test every individual policyholder; and recognises the impact and significant distress that maladministration and injustice have caused in respect of Equitable Life."</p>
  
  <p pid="a.787.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes"> Question put accordingly (<phrase class="standing-order" code="31(2)" pwmotiontext="yes">Standing Order No. 31(2)</phrase>, That the original words stand part of the Question.</p>
  
  <p pid="a.787.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> The House divided:</i> Ayes 236, Noes 291.</p>