Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Fabian Hamilton

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Absolutely. Importantly, we are rolling out a prison education service, with a considerable sum of money—about £150 million a year, which is significant. However, it is critical to have tie-up between the local employment advisory boards, liaising with the governor, and the New Futures Network to ensure that the education provided is tailored to the jobs on the outside. People are being assisted with literacy, for example, so that they can do jobs in hospitality, kitchens or horticulture. Education works when it is tailored to job opportunities on the outside. That is how we get prisoners motivated and engaged—and yes, I am happy to engage in the way that the hon. Member proposes.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to prevent the potential abuse of lasting power of attorney agreements.

Equitable Life

Debate between Alex Chalk and Fabian Hamilton

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Debate between Alex Chalk and Fabian Hamilton

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

I certainly do agree, and I will go on to make that point. It is the very reason I took up this cause in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I had believed that only the wealthy invested in Equitable—people with hundreds of thousands of pounds to put into their pensions seeking to make a huge return—but I discovered that, in fact, the average pension pot was just £45,000. Ordinary people, saving £20 or £30 a month over a working life, were investing in Equitable.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an important business case, as it were, for the Government to do more? If people cannot support themselves without the income that they expected, the burden of doing so will fall on the state, which means there is all the more reason to do more now.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Absolutely. That is a very good point. People were encouraged to save for themselves exactly because neither the state nor the individual wanted people to have to depend on the state always coming up with the money necessary to enable them to have a full and enriching retirement. It was about self-reliance, which has been at the core of the arguments today and over many years in debates in this House. The people who were helping to provide for themselves and who were encouraged to invest in Equitable are the very people who have been let down. They are not the wealthy, but the ordinary people who were putting aside a little bit more for their retirement so they could have a comfortable retirement, and that money has now gone.