Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, but I would also like to raise a further matter for the Minister to reflect on in his reply: the possibility of including in the Government’s online harms White Paper elements that would address the online distribution of abuse images and videos.

The Government have rightly made much effort to tackle online abuse, address mental health concerns and deal with offensive imagery and online behaviours—a critical issue, especially for our young people. However, when I skimmed through the online harms White Paper in advance of this Committee sitting, I found no mention of animal welfare or of the distribution of the kind of images that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is an opportunity for the Minister to reflect on how a conversation between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport might help to support the collective Government effort against the sharing of these disgusting images and videos, and create a more comprehensive system.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Redcar. No one has done more than she has to advance this legislation. I entirely endorse the spirit and intention behind what she proposes, and simply want to volunteer some thoughts by way of context.

It is important to note that the recording of an offence is already set out as an aggravating factor in certain other criminal offences such as rape and sexual assault. As we know, the Sentencing Council publishes guidelines that the court is obliged to take into account. It is therefore important to ensure that the Sentencing Council has the widest possible rein to reflect the full spectrum of aggravating features in respect of this offence, as it has done with other offences.

My only question mark relates to whether there is a risk that, if we legislate for one particular aggravating feature, the Sentencing Council might not have as broad a remit as it might like. I say that because its guideline on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 lists “Other aggravating factors”, including “Use of a weapon” and “Use of another animal”. My rhetorical question is whether, in focusing legislation purely on one aspect, however heinous an aggravating feature it is, we risk inadvertently downplaying other aggravating features.

While I respectfully and entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s intention and the spirit of her amendment, I venture to suggest that the Sentencing Council has shown itself well capable of reflecting the issue of degradation through publication, and well attuned to the need to do so. Inevitably, I think it would include that factor, but it would also include other aggravating features such as use of another animal, use of a weapon, or whether the victim—so to speak—was a public service dog. That would ensure that the offending received the condign punishment it deserves.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Newton]

I am going to pass my opportunity over to Alex.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q Thank you very much. I declare an interest: I am pretty sure I have prosecuted offences that were defended at the bar by Bindmans.

Mr Schwarz, can I ask briefly about your helpful point on an apparent inconsistency between domestic and wild animals and explore a little bit about how much that matters? I am conscious that, if a robbery takes place and there are two robbers, one of whom is 18 years and one day old at the time of the offence and the other is 17 years and 360 days, they will be sentenced under different regimes, even though, as far as they are concerned, they are two young men of effectively identical age. Equally, if there is a traffic offence and a prosecutor decides the driving fell far below the standard of a reasonably careful and competent driver, they get charged with dangerous driving. Equally, if another prosecutor says, “Well, I don’t think it quite crosses ‘far below’, but it was below the expected standard, so I’m going to charge it as careless driving,” that offending would be sentenced under different regimes. Have the courts not shown themselves to be well able to deal with such discrepancies without any real manifest injustice to anyone?

Mike Schwarz: I can see I have struck a lawyer here. There is a difference, actually, and it is one of substance. There is a principle behind treating adults differently from juveniles, and a principle behind treating careless driving differently from dangerous driving. As we all know, the law has to draw a line because there is a reason for doing so. The distinction between the sectors of domesticated and wildlife animals, and treating them differently in terms of sentence, does not appear to have a principle, unless Parliament is saying that the animal suffers less in the wild as the result of unnecessary cruelty, or that it is more important to punish suffering in the domesticated area. For what it is worth, I think the suffering is the same, and it is for Parliament to decide whether the two should be distinguished from each other. That is where the distinction lies.

It begs the question of what the animal welfare legislation is generally about. It seems to be about protecting animals, punishing bad behaviour by humans and stopping it being propagated elsewhere. In the sentencing guidelines and the offences, however, there is no demarcation between sectors to say that one sector is more worthy of protection than the other is, which is why I go back to the point on the level playing field across the two areas.

[Alex Chalk]

Q It is an entirely fair and appropriate observation to make. Do you accept that the law has shown over time to be capable of growing organically? For example, the stalking legislation did not even exist—it was not even recognised by the law prior to 2012. Then the offence came in, the sentencing powers increased, and there were various other aspects on top of it. That would not in and of itself be a reason not to enact this legislation, even if, in the fullness of time, it may be that it has wider ramifications. Would you accept that?

Mike Schwarz: Obviously I accept that the legislation can and should be passed, but with the health warning that it is creating a disparity. It is not an artificial, in-principle, lawyer’s type of disparity; it creates problems for judges to have a judge in the Crown court sentencing on one set of facts and in the magistrates court on another. If one looks at the guidelines, how is a judge going to sentence someone who has committed a very heinous act against a wildlife animal if his or her sentencing powers lead to the conclusion that the sentence should be lower than for a less heinous act in another area?

Defence lawyers, as you and others know, would have field day with that, saying that the principles of proportionality and fairness require examination. I heard that there was feedback from the judiciary about the existing law. One can only think about what the feedback might be, pending a formal review or report, or not, if this disparity were not only passed—and I am not saying it should not be—but passed without a commitment to reviewing and evening up the playing field.

[Alex Chalk]

Q One very last point, if I may. Surely if, for the sake of argument, the sentencing guideline is there in place and says that, where a dog has had its tail docked and it was a sustained act of degrading violence, the brackets should be one to three years, and the defence counsel turns around and says, “Oh, well, if this were a wild dog I wouldn’t get as much,” the judge will say, “I am not terribly interested in that. The sentencing guideline is clear for this offence. Parliament has indicated that it takes it extremely seriously. We have no difficulty with dismissing that rather ambitious submission,” and take him down? Is that not, in fact, what would happen?

Mike Schwarz: I think that would happen, but it might bring the law into disrepute when, in the next court, something similar—

[Alex Chalk]

I take that point. Thank you very much. That is all I wanted to explore.

[Anna Turley]

Q Thank you very much for your evidence so far. Could you share from your experience on the degree of consistency or inconsistency in what you see from the sentencing so far in such cases under the existing legislation? As a second part of that, could you talk about how, when lawyers are defending their clients, they seek to convince the court that their client should face a lesser sentence? What mitigating factors, or even aggravating factors that work against them, have you seen so far? I will start with Inspector O’Hara.

Inspector O'Hara: The majority of offences that I have seen prosecuted by the police are probably not cases that would hit the higher end of the sentencing bracket. They are largely cases involving an animal hoarder—generally somebody who has some mental health problems or another underlying reason for amassing 20 animals in a property. It is that sort of offence that we typically see day in, day out. At the last count, when I ran the figures for the EFRA Committee inquiry report a couple of years ago, broadly speaking—this is from memory—around 85% of the prosecutions were done by the RSPCA and about 15% by police or local authorities, with the burden of that shared by the police.

That typically tends to be my experience. We have not had any tail-docking cases that I can think of in London, but we have ear-cropping mutilations and general animal cruelty rather than organised crime or that more serious end of it. All those cases have been dealt with in a magistrates court so far, but the sentencing in London is fairly consistent because all those cases go to one court, although elsewhere in the country it is probably not so. Most of those cases are dealt with by way of a fine or other ancillary orders rather than imprisonment.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for the flattering picture that he painted of me.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

All true.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I just want to make a couple of points. It is true that in days gone by, there was perhaps a lack of attention to detail, but in recent times the Whitehall Prosecutors’ Group has come together to try to ensure that there are high standards of training and effectiveness among prosecutors of all sorts. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with me that it is perhaps worth just mentioning to one of the Law Officers what has been said, just to ensure that this matter is brought to their attention and that there is proper superintendence of this legal process.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have five minutes left for this panel. I currently have five Members who wish to ask a question, and I intend to take those who have not yet done so. May I please ask everyone to be succinct?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q On the points you made about human gratification and being moved from place to place, how far does that go? Although horses, for example, are not wild animals, they are ridden, used for human gratification and moved around to races for three-day events. Is that inherently cruel?

Daniella Dos Santos: The scope of the Bill is specifically about wild animals. The use of domesticated animals is a completely different discussion to be had. Here, the point to focus on is that these are wild animals, not domesticated ones.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Just on that point, is there a distinction, in that wild animals would feel more traumatised than domesticated animals?

Daniella Dos Santos: Domesticated animals have come to be under the care of humans for generations, have been bred to exhibit traits that we find useful and find life under the influence of humans less stressful than a wild animal would.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q You talk very compellingly about wild animals in circuses and their welfare. There is nothing in the Bill about domesticated animals in circuses. Do you have any views about whether that should be in scope, or whether there are welfare needs of domesticated animals that are not currently addressed?

Nicola O'Brien: Our organisation feels that those should also be banned from circuses. We feel that there are welfare needs of domestic animals that, again, are difficult to meet in a circus environment. The transportation—the loading and off-loading, and being transported—has its impact. A large part of the Bill is about ethics, and we feel that people are uncomfortable with animals being used in circuses, full stop, not necessarily with whether they are wild or domesticated. There is probably a difference: they are probably more concerned about wild animals because of their wild nature and freedom. There is definitely the argument that domestic animals are more suited to being around humans in the kind of environments that we house them in. However, we also recognise that the Bill is about wild animals. That was the question put to the public in the consultation—that is the focus for today—but this is something that we would also like to see prohibited in future.

Dr Ros Clubb: From the RSPCA’s perspective, we also have a position against the use of any animal in circuses. We have concerns because of issues such as the travelling, temporary enclosure and so on, of domestic animals. As Nicola said, in some cases the concern is probably less, because they are more adapted to a captive environment; nevertheless, concerns remain. We are very much minded that this legislation is focused on wild animals. That is where the opportunity lies to make change.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Hoare]

The animals that would be covered by the Bill, were it to become an Act.

Peter Jolly: Camels, zebra, reindeer, an Indian cow, a fox, two raccoons and a macaw.

Carol MacManus: And I have one zebra, two camels and two reindeer that I believe are questionable anyway.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q Because they are not reindeer?

Carol MacManus: Because they are not really wild in this country—only if they are owned by a circus.

[Simon Hoare]

Q There is always this fine divide, and because one can does not necessarily mean that one should. Do you think, in this day and age, with the popular access to wildlife television programmes and conservation and so on, that animals should be used for entertainment in that way? What good is that doing, apart from entertaining?

Peter Jolly: It is not just the entertainment in the ring. We have children coming to the circus who have never seen, smelled or touched a camel. I have a fox that is now 15 years old that I hand-reared from three or four days old. The only foxes that children see are on the side of the road, dead. They do not see these animals. Safari parks and zoos are very good in their own way, but not everybody can afford to go to a zoo or safari park, because they are very expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

That’s a fair market counter-argument that you put.

Carol MacManus: And we have moved with the times and we do make improvements—everybody makes improvements all the time.

Peter Jolly: Just having the licensing scheme is moving forward. That was a move forward.

Carol MacManus: Anybody here should read that before they make their decision, because the review on our reports speaks volumes.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Two things. First, your basic argument, as I understand it, is that any wild animal—or exotic animal, as you call it—should be able to perform in these circuses.

Peter Jolly: We might not want to use them, but what we are saying is that if they can be kept according to the proper methods and welfare, you should be allowed them. You should not be allowed them if you cannot meet the stringent welfare standards.

[Alex Chalk]

Q May I ask you a couple of questions about that, then, and take, for example, a tiger? Tigers are solitary animals. Would you agree with that?

Peter Jolly: Yes.

[Alex Chalk]

Q They roam across wide areas when they are in the natural world. Do you agree with that?

Peter Jolly: Yes.

[Alex Chalk]

Q They very often have habitats of 60 sq km. Would you agree with that?

Peter Jolly: Yes, in the wild.

[Alex Chalk]

Q So would you agree that to put them in a circus would be to put them in a wholly artificial environment?

Carol MacManus: I do not think these are questions that you need to be asking us.

Peter Jolly: You are asking me, but I have not got tigers, so I cannot answer the question.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Okay. The next thing I want to ask is this. You have horses on the one hand and camels on the other—you have camels, correct?

Peter Jolly: Yes.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Do you detect any difference in the way that those two animals experience being in a circus? Before you answer, the evidence we heard this morning was, “Don’t worry, Mr Chalk. Horses are different because they’ve been domesticated over centuries.” My question is whether the experience of a camel is in fact any different from that of a horse.

Carol MacManus: I think that the camels are much more laid back and less likely to get spooked. The horses pick up on little things and decide, “Oh, I don’t like that today. I don’t like that spotlight.” The camels just come in and do their little job. Sometimes the baby will have a little dance. They are definitely much more laid back and calm than the horses.

[Alex Chalk]

That is all I wanted to ask.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Q For my own understanding, and hopefully that of the Committee, I will try not to repeat things, but ask about a few things that seem to be at the heart of the argument and of the debate. You are saying that these animals are not, in any meaningful sense, wild, because they have been domesticated all their lives. Have they been tamed to the same extent as domesticated animals would be in this country?

Peter Jolly: All our animals are, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady obviously has not heard my answer that we are now moving to a situation in which benefits will rise in line with inflation, but let us be honest about the choices that the Scottish Government are making. Their choice is to raise taxes on people earning £50,000 by £1,500 a year, driving business out of Scotland and making the Scottish economy less successful.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase take-home pay for low-paid workers.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The Government are committed to making work pay and ensuring that people keep more of the money they earn in their pockets. Last week, we saw another above-inflation increase in the national living wage, meaning that a full-time worker on the national living wage would be earning £690 more over the coming year. This week, the personal allowance has increased to £12,500. A single person on the national minimum wage, working 35 hours a week, would have taken home £9,200 in 2010; this year, they will take home £13,700.

[Alex Chalk]

One way of increasing take-home pay is to create more high-paying jobs in the first place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Cheltenham’s Government-backed cyber innovation centre, which sees the country’s finest cyber-security minds from GCHQ nurturing small businesses, is an excellent example of how the state and the private sector can combine to boost the economy and generate great jobs to boot?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree that the public and private sectors can work together to support digital businesses, including in the vital area of cyber, and that is why we have established the Cheltenham innovation centre as part of our £1.9 billion commitment to cyber-security.

Business Rates

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will get a little further in my speech and then accept a few more interventions. If I can make some progress, hon. Members might see where I am coming from.

The Red Book says that the amount collected by the business rates in 2019 is about £30.9 billion, but even this simple proposition is clouded by how much the Government have to provide for a loss on appeals, which alters the uniform business rates multiplier to allow rates under legislation to rise by at least RPI every year. Whatever happens to appeals, rates or reliefs, the Minister and his Department have to make up that £30.9 billion elsewhere.

I come now to the kernel of what I want to say today, and this in part addresses the interventions from hon. Friends. The OECD revenue statistics database makes it perfectly clear that the UK tops the league of taxation on immovable property both as a percentage of taxation and as a percentage of GDP by some margin. The UK paid 9% of rateable taxation in 2016. Our nearest rival, France, paid 7%; Germany just 1%; and Luxembourg barely a quarter. This must be a major reason why manufacturing business is not as competitive as in our nearest European rivals.

To shore up this £30.9 billion of revenue, the Treasury has had to increase the complex array of reliefs and allowances to compensate for some of the most damaging consequences of the tax, so in every Budget more or less, one sees a new allowance or relief to mitigate some of the worst effects of the tax. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has already done, I refer the House to my previous debate on this subject on 9 October 2018, when, as reported at column 117, my right hon. Friend the Minister listed some of these many reliefs.



We were all pleased when, in his Budget on 29 October last year, the Chancellor recognised that many small retail businesses were struggling to cope. I am sure that Members throughout the Chamber can give examples of businesses that are struggling to cope with the high fixed costs of business rates.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I give way to my neighbour from Cheltenham.

[Alex Chalk]

Nurseries in Cheltenham provide a vital public service for parents, enabling them to go to work, but they are marginal businesses, and it is very hard for them to make money. Circus Day Nursery has written to me saying that it is struggling with the impact of business rates, and that the Government’s great intentions to allow local dispensations to be provided by councils are not being pursued in practice. Has my hon. Friend any views on the impact of business rates on the viability of the local nurseries that are so vital to our communities?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I do have a view, as it happens. Later in my speech I shall be dealing with discretionary hardship relief from local authorities. Some of that could go towards my hon. Friend’s struggling nurseries, but the problem is that cash-strapped authorities are reluctant to give any discretionary reliefs at all. When we reach a point at which rates retention is one of the only sources of income for the small borough and district councils, they will be even less willing to provide hardship relief.

Spring Statement

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have never been afraid to acknowledge that, as far as the economy is concerned, Brexit uncertainty is a distraction, and it is something we need to get lifted as soon as possible. I think I said that at the beginning of my statement. The sooner we can do that, the better. It will help us to grow faster, and it will help us to raise productivity more quickly, and that means higher wages across the economy.

On the issues that the hon. Lady mentions, we are putting £1.2 billion into addressing homelessness and rough sleeping. We are consulting on an additional 1% stamp duty levy on properties bought by non-UK resident owners, with the whole of that money ring-fenced to address the rough-sleeping challenge in our cities. In relation to poverty, she knows the figures. We have over 3.5 million more people in work, with 665,000 fewer children living in workless households. However much Opposition Members may not like it, it remains the case that work is the best sustainable route out of poverty.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement. If we do get the orderly Brexit that I know he and I want, may I urge him to consider schools funding in the spending review? Schools in my constituency are doing enormously important work, but they are facing increased challenges, particularly with pupil volatility, pupil complexity and rising demands. They are having to do more, and I invite him to ensure that they have the resources to match.

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend knows, we put £1.3 billion into the schools budget in 2017, and we have protected per pupil real funding since then. He will also know that there is a significant variation in the level of funding between schools and authorities across the country, which is now being addressed through the fair funding formula. I understand that there are pressures in the system until we have that rolled out and operational, having delivered the result throughout the system. However, I can confirm to him that schools funding will be considered in the spending review, along with all other areas of departmental spending in the round.

Sport in the UK

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I hear the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my officials and I have had conversations about making sure that we do not forget our links to Northern Ireland. In the sports cabinet, it was said very clearly that we cannot forget to focus on areas where there may not be that push right now. I will take that away as an action, and I am very happy to continue to look at that area.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the army of volunteers who support mass participation in sport? In Cheltenham, we have a parkrun every Saturday in Pittville park—it is a 5k run—but it simply would not be possible without the volunteers who make it happen. Will she join me in paying tribute to their valuable contribution?

[Mims Davies]

I am being given a workout with the interventions this evening and I have absolutely no problem with that. I thank my hon. Friend for raising Parkrun. I will come on to that later in my speech. There are junior parkruns and local parkruns. Frankly, by half past 9, people can get their weekend exercise done because of volunteers, rain or shine—or snow, as we have seen recently. It is absolutely right that we thank our local volunteers for that.

Equitable Life

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly a view that people are not saving in the way in which they used to. Young people are being discouraged from saving as a result of what they see as the scandals that took place.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I join others in commending my hon. Friend on the extraordinary campaign that he has led. Does he agree that not only is this a debt of honour, but that the Treasury can take comfort from the unique circumstances of the case in terms of the fault that was found with the Government and other regulators to know that this would not open the floodgates? The matter stands on its own terms, and the Government can do the proper thing of compensating people without fearing that that will have some enormous knock-on effect.

[Bob Blackman]

Not only that, but if the compensation was paid out, because the people involved are vulnerable and retired or likely to retire soon, the Treasury would see the money repaid and put into the economy straightaway, not put away for a rainy day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention. The story of her constituents is reflected up and down the country, in every constituency represented in this House, and I hope that we will get some answers from the Minister at the end of this debate.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the approach being taken seems inconsistent with the approaches taken in different contexts? For example, if someone is the victim of a crime, they can be compensated by the state for something that is not the state’s fault at all, and yet the state is more reluctant in circumstances where there was complicity, or certainly fault, from the state. Does he agree that is a troubling inconsistency?

[Fabian Hamilton]

Indeed, and if I am able to complete my contribution this afternoon, I will add to the hon. Gentleman’s point.

At the core of the problem is the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made for itself, because it had made no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and, indeed, its assets. Following the House of Lords ruling in July 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable Life. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts to their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of income on which many small investors had depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000 which, according to EMAG, even at its height would have yielded no more than £300 a month.

The then Labour Government unfortunately failed to introduce any ex gratia compensation scheme and refused to follow the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman. Reacting to the Government’s lack of response to the ombudsman’s report, the then Conservative Opposition stated their determination to introduce an Equitable Life (Payments) Bill early in the next Parliament should they form a Government after the forthcoming general election of 2010.

One of the coalition agreement’s plans for legislation did indeed include such a Bill, which became the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010. It was introduced early on in June 2010, shortly after the new Government took office. On 10 November, I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee that would have included the pre-1992 trapped with-profits annuitants—WPAs—who had been specifically excluded, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said earlier, from the proposed compensation scheme. The Bill offered 100% compensation to all with-profits annuitants who took out their annuities after 1 September 1992, and 22.4% to every other policyholder. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that that was inherently unfair, because the 1 September 1992 date was somewhat arbitrary. Many of the policyholders would unfortunately not even live to enjoy the compensation were it to be paid.

I tabled another amendment to that Bill, which read:

“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”.

The amendment took just over two hours to debate and the vote was lost by 76 to 301, but it strongly set out the case for including the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants. Although that amendment failed in 2010, I still believe that it is vital to give equality of treatment to those who took out with-profits annuitant contracts before 1992 and who are still alive. As we have heard, those people are the oldest and the most vulnerable victims, and the cost could be met from the £140 million underspent from the £1.5 billion originally allocated by Parliament.

Rectifying the injustice would cost in the region of around £100 million. The lifetime payments to the post-1992 WPAs are 11% less than forecast, and there is no reason to expect that the total amount of £620 million allocated for those payments will ever be needed, let alone exceeded. That means that the separate contingency fund should now be released and distributed to victims, rather than remain in Her Majesty’s Treasury’s back pocket. Will the Minister confirm this afternoon that every last penny of the £1.5 billion already allocated by Parliament will reach victims as intended?

The Bill received Royal Assent in 2010, and the compensation scheme was set in motion. It was slow at first, but it began to pick up over subsequent years. By 31 August 2016, when the scheme’s final figures were published, over £1.2 billion had been paid out to 932,805 policyholders, although more than 107,647 have still to be paid but cannot be traced. Tragically, 15,516 policyholders have died, and their estates did not claim the payments despite attempts by the scheme to contact them. In addition, 894,507 non-with-profits annuity investors have been issued with lump sum payments totalling £751 million.

To conclude, when we examine the compensation paid to investors following the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, for which every investor received up to £50,000 of their losses in full and quickly, the Equitable Life scheme looks rather less generous. Given that the average policy involved a total sum invested of £45,000, it seems rather unfair to me and to Equitable Life policyholders that they did not receive more, which is why EMAG continues to campaign for full compensation for all policyholders and why so many Members on both sides of this House support that view. I urge all Members—this is the last bit, Mr Deputy Speaker—current and future to take up the cause of Equitable Life policyholders to try to restore their faith in the ability of this House, as the elected representatives of the people, properly to secure compensation for the victims of one of the greatest financial scandals of our age. We have a moral duty and should not be afraid to carry it out.