§ Mr. TimmsTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of progress made by pension firms in providing redress to the victims of mis-selling. [24328]
§ Mrs. LiddellThe table shows what progress has been made in the period up to the end of December 1997 by the 41 firms I have been monitoring. Since November, most of these firms have made continuing progress, and between them the firms concerned have now resolved over half of the cases identified for review.
For 29 of these firms, the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) set a deadline of 31 December for 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases to be resolved. It made clear that failure to take all reasonable steps to meet the deadline would be grounds for disciplinary action. The PIA announced today that the initial indications are that while most the firms concerned had indeed made their best endeavours to meet this first deadline, five appear to have failed to do so. It also announced its intention to make further investigations to see what further action is warranted.
The first deadline has now passed and most of the large firms appear to have met it. Those who have not must face the consequences. The PIA is considering what the consequences should be. The 41 firms still have a huge task ahead of them: none of them have yet resolved all their priority cases. For most firms, including the many that are not included in the table, a deadline of 31 December 1998 has been set for completion of this task—for some firms it is as early as 30 April 1998. There will be no let up—from the Government or from the regulators—until it has been achieved, and I will continue to monitor progress month by month.
319WThese deadlines must be met fairly and effectively. The regulators will be monitoring firms' case processing to see that there is no cutting of corners at investors'
A B C D E F G H Under 25 per cent, of cases resolved DBS 652 68 125 49 76 8 1 19 Burns Anderson 974 98 137 89 48 27 3 22 Gan 10,517 600 2,749 372 2,377 1,612 15 25 25–50 per cent, of cases resolved Windsor Life 8,319 1,483 1,057 148 909 759 9 29 Lincoln National 13,034 1,227 2,712 809 1,903 1,709 13 29 Financial Options 303 74 28 14 14 5 2 31 Countrywide 3,463 916 308 222 86 57 2 35 Canada Life 5,459 236 2,180 458 1,722 1,472 27 40 Friends Provident 6,723 868 2,171 359 1,812 1,640 24 43 London and Manchester 8,073 793 3,100 431 2,669 2,346 29 44 CIS 43,391 2,990 17,318 11,884 5,434 4,525 10 45 IFA Network 203 11 85 60 25 20 10 45 United Assurance 12,329 700 5,236 1,682 3,554 3,156 26 45 Abbey Life 16,956 3,947 4,060 879 3,181 2,809 17 45 Standard Life 6,799 500 2,684 959 1,725 1,634 24 45 Royal and Sun Alliance 15,476 1,843 5,992 796 5,196 4,415 29 46 Brittanic 18,690 4,003 5,465 2,159 3,306 2,600 14 47 Hill Samuel 5,982 786 2,314 464 1,850 1,590 27 47 Colonial 8,067 1,949 2,327 313 2,014 1,590 20 48 50–75 per cent, cases resolved Godwins 1,476 69 696 301 395 372 25 50 Allied Dunbar 18,378 2,946 7,408 2,674 4,734 3,820 21 51 Natwest 14,199 3,681 4,664 877 3,787 2,783 20 52 Sun Life of Canada 25,979 6,497 8,290 1,600 6,690 5,510 21 52 Lloyd's TSB 48,241 8,774 19,619 5,500 14,119 11,912 25 54 Guardian 8,778 913 4,762 778 3,984 3,216 37 56 Albany Life 2,848 548 1,439 104 1,335 982 34 57 Commercial Union 7,536 1,058 3,840 694 3,146 2,712 36 61 Pearl 43,735 2,884 31,043 5,523 25,520 18,277 42 61 Royal London 11,634 975 7,150 1,285 5,865 4,885 42 61 Norwich Union 7,226 2,072 2,702 589 2,113 1,813 25 62 Berkeley Independent 100 54 10 8 2 2 2 64 Midland 4,800 341 3,315 463 2,852 2,306 48 65 Wesleyan 4,137 233 2,657 807 1,850 1,671 40 66 Prudential 71,619 17,705 49,258 3,328 45,930 26,075 36 66 Legal and General 35,906 14,028 13,342 1,419 11,923 8,942 25 68 Sedgwick 13,414 6,557 3,198 1,196 2,002 1,634 12 70 M and E Network 273 154 46 17 29 25 9 72 Over 75 per cent, of cases resolved Equitable Life 11,129 5,566 2,995 1,313 1,682 1,468 13 75 Barclays 16,849 6,073 8,176 1,920 6,256 5,205 31 78 AXA Equity and Law 3,874 702 2,561 651 1,910 1,725 45 79 Hogg Robinson 1,949 795 866 317 549 466 24 81 A: cases identified as requiring review.
B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review.
C: number of assessments completed.
D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due.
E: cases where redress has been offered
F: cases where redress has been accepted.
G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/A)X100).
H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)x100).