National Insurance Contributions Bill (First sitting)

Liz Twist Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He repeated the question from Second Reading of why the measure is for one year, contrasting it with the freeports measures, which are for three years. The Exchequer Secretary was absolutely right, but it is important for me to add more colour.

The freeports measure is set at a lower upper secondary threshold, but for a longer period, because the goal is to bring people into an environment that has already been greatly supported by taxpayers, but to create circumstances in which they can have long-term secure employment, in particular with all the employment rights that come with more durable employment. The NICs relief for veterans is at a higher level for a shorter period, because the goal is to support a very specific process of transition, which veterans have as they come out of the armed forces.

Many people in the room have constituencies in which there are veterans or serving armed forces personnel, so they will appreciate the importance of the measure. Veterans are extremely skilled individuals who have extraordinary life experience, but there is often that process of transition. Therefore, the more effective approach is to provide more support for a shorter period to assist that transition in as flexible a way as possible.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I understand the concept of the transition, but does the Minister not share my concern that it might go against the grain of what he is trying to do if we were to find that, after a period of one year of having the national insurance relief, people were out of employment? The proposal to look over a longer period would be beneficial to veterans in maintaining long-term employment.

[Jesse Norman]

I fully understand the concern of the hon. Lady, and precisely because the Government have been concerned about transition, we have introduced the relief. If it were the case that veterans still had a serious problem of finding secure and stable employment, of course that would be a matter that the Government would wish to reflect on and consider. I thank her for raising it.

To go to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North, he asked about the timing and the issues of real-time payments that the Bill contemplates. I understand the concern, in particular at this moment of pandemic when the Government are seeking to protect and support the cash flow of businesses and have done so across a vast number of them, across the whole of the United Kingdom, in many different forms. The Committee is aware of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked if we would look at that. Of course, I am happy to consider the matter further and to ask HMRC to consider it, but as he will recall, the matter has been given extensive consultation and internal discussion, and the IT and other problems that I described are not ones that can be wished away.

Economic Update

Liz Twist Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thoroughly enjoyed my conversation with my right hon. Friend’s local businesses. He mentioned exactly the right point: quality of life. This is not just about our economy and jobs; this industry is so vital for our wellbeing, and it brings spirit, life and vitality to our local communities. He can rest assured that I will want to continue supporting the industry, as I have done in the past, and I will bear what he says in mind for future Budgets.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

A failure to make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent would have a disproportionate impact on families across the north-east, which has the highest rate of unemployment and the second highest rate of child poverty. Will the Chancellor now commit to make that £20 uplift permanent?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have a lot of respect, mentioned two things: unemployment and child poverty. We know that the best way to ensure that children do not grow up in poverty is for them not to grow up in a workless household; indeed, the rate of poverty among children who are not in workless households is five times lower. Work—removing unemployment—is the best, surest and most sustainable way out of poverty, which is why this Government have backed with billions of pounds our various initiatives to support people into work, which I know she will support, whether that is the restart scheme, the kickstart scheme, doubling the amount of work coaches or increasing the incentive for people to take on new apprentices. Those are all the surest ways to help people out of poverty, and that is why we are committing billions of pounds to that end.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Liz Twist Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I am glad to be able to take part in this important debate. Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister proclaimed:

“We need to get people off furlough and into work”.—[Official Report, 16 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 311.]

But he said that the scheme is not “the right way” to do that. Yet, he also stated that the Government will continue to apply the maximum creativity in putting their arms around the workforce in the UK. This contradiction is forcing millions into crippling uncertainty. The Government’s short-sighted decision to withdraw support for jobs and businesses across the UK will be nothing short of disastrous for people, for businesses and for jobs. We all know that. We have warned them time and again that this approach will result in job losses and hardship for ordinary people who are just trying to get through the coronavirus crisis.

According to IPPR research, 2 million viable jobs are at risk. Other countries have extended their schemes, why cannot we? In fact, we should. I am not arguing that the furlough scheme should be carried on just as it is. I am not arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach to job retention and I am certainly not asking the Government to throw money at every industry. What we need is a flexible, targeted support scheme beyond the autumn to save millions of people in vulnerable sectors from the jobs crisis. To avoid this inevitable jobs catastrophe, we need some key actions and changes to the furlough scheme. We need to expand part-time working and reward employers who give people hours rather than cut jobs. We need to provide training and support for those who cannot come back full time. We need to target sectors most in need, including retail, which is a major employer in my constituency of Blaydon and already suffering. We need to target hospitality and other people hit by local lockdowns. We need to provide certainty for workers and businesses, but, instead, what have we got? We have the job retention bonus, which is a scheme that will see taxpayers’ money going into businesses that were going to bring back workers anyway. My constituents do not need a bonus, they need a lifeline.

Things will only get worse if the Government continue with their plans to strip people of that lifeline shortly. Earlier this week, the north-east chamber of commerce said that it knows that the winding down of the job retention scheme is likely to lead to significant redundancies in the months ahead. The continued rise in the claimant count in my constituency in the north-east is an early indicator of that. Many of those people who are jobless and claiming at the moment are in the 18-to-24 age group. The crisis has had an unequal impact on young people in the north-east.

We know as well that some people have got on the job retention scheme as it is coming to an end, but there are other people who have been excluded, who have fallen through the cracks. So many businesses in my constituency tell me that they are not able to claim grants and they are not able to furlough themselves. These are not rich business people. They are not fat cats. They are people who are just working hard to make ends meet and to provide businesses and employment in the constituency. I hope that the Government will think again and consider extending the furlough scheme, but in a new form, which better reflects the needs of the people. That will give people in my constituency—both employees and entrepreneurs—a chance to survive.

Contingencies Fund Bill

Liz Twist Excerpts

Committee stage & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I want to touch briefly on the situation of charities and their funding in the context of coronavirus. I am aware that charities have already been in conversation with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about funding to allow them to assist in responding to the crisis. So many people face huge need and social isolation. Just some of the factors affecting those people are funding for food banks, which is falling because of the current situation, as are donations; funding for listening services; and funding for care services, which are needed more than they have ever been.

Charities face huge challenges, and they, too, need contingency funding measures if they are to survive and assist our communities as we face this challenge. Many of them are losing income because of the need to close their charity shops and the cancellation of fundraising events. Will the Minister confirm that charities should be eligible for the same business interruption measures as other business organisations? Will he look again at the trading income threshold, which, as I understand it, requires 50% of income to come from trade?

Charities need a stabilisation fund to help them to stay afloat and assist our communities, and I hope that that will be made available to our charities in the context of this contingency funding. Will the Minister confirm that they will be eligible for support to pay their staff, as other employers are? It is vital that we retain the infrastructure of our charities if we are to get through this situation and survive into the future.

There must be emergency funding for frontline charities that are supporting the response to coronavirus to ensure that they can remain afloat and provide that service. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that, and I hope he will respond thoughtfully and positively to the points that she has made.

We face a huge issue as we move, quite rightly, into greater social isolation. Charities such as Age UK Gateshead, which covers my constituency, and Samaritans have a real and positive role to play in countering the mental strain of loneliness and isolation, which many people will undoubtedly face in this situation. I ask the Minister to ensure that charities are given the funding that they need.

While I am on my feet and I have, I hope, the Minister’s ear, I put in a plea for funding for the self-employed, particularly those in what I would call microbusinesses—the dance schools, the musicians, the driving instructors and the pest controllers—who are contacting me, even as I have been sitting here, to say, “I just don’t know what I am going to do.” They not only have no income, but they do not qualify for the various grants and loans. They are left trying to claim universal credit, but the huge backlog of claims means that, with the best will in the world, no payments will be made quickly. So many of them have contacted me in desperation in the last couple of weeks. They have lost not only their main income but their future business, and they will have to rebuild from the start. Can the Minister press the Chancellor to provide funding for that group of people?

Finally, I want to flag funding for transport services. The coronavirus has produced a huge change in the usage of our transport systems, which are vital for the future. I know that many transport authorities are looking at how they can maintain transport services, but it is important that we work sympathetically and flexibly to maintain our public sector transport system.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Liz Twist Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

As I have explained previously, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 an inspector may seize an animal if it is suffering or is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change. If someone is convicted of either causing unnecessary suffering to an animal or failing to provide for its welfare needs, the courts also have a power to disqualify them from owning or keeping animals.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

There is concern about using two different bits of legislation to solve one problem. Would it not be clearer to cover this issue in the Bill, rather than relying on the Animal Welfare Act?

[David Rutley]

That is an interesting point. It is difficult to get the balance right, but the key thing to remember is that we are discussing an outdated practice that we want to see removed on ethical grounds. Seizure is much easier where there are genuine welfare concerns—I will explain why in more detail—and those powers are contained in the 2006 Act.

If the animal is subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976—of those animals currently kept in circuses, only camels and zebras are subject—it may be seized if it is being kept without a licence or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is no need to replicate those powers here. In Committee, concern was raised about repeated breaches of the Act. The courts would have the power to impose unlimited fines, which makes it highly unlikely that a circus would continue to reoffend, for economic reasons.

Powers to seize animals interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, which is protected by article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights. Interferences must be justified and proportionate. That may be easy to do if an owner is mistreating an animal and the powers are being exercised under the Animal Welfare Act, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. However, the objective of this legislation is simply, but importantly, to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses on ethical grounds. Preventing someone from using animals for other purposes, which is what the seizure and deprivation powers do, goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bill.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Liz Twist Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

As we have heard from so many hon. Members today, this Bill is long overdue. We have heard about the many earlier attempts to get this ban on the statute book. A statement from the Government in 2012 indicated that they were going to pursue this path, so the Bill today is well overdue.

My constituents have been contacting me about this issue since I became a Member of Parliament, and I know that people feel strongly about it. Indeed, a change.org petition on the subject attracted more than 200,000 signatures—I know that many of my constituents signed it—and there have been other e-petitions along the way. It is about time that we moved on from this archaic practice and recognised that our entertainment comes at a huge price—the welfare and care of the animals that are moved from place to place in poor conditions and under a great deal of stress. As I have said, this Bill is well overdue.

In 2010, a Labour Government public consultation found that 94.5% of respondents supported a ban, which really is not surprising. Animals in circuses are subjected to brutal training methods and violence, which have no place in our society. I am glad that it looks as though a ban will finally be imposed. As others have said, it is frustrating that we are way behind the times in this country. Many countries across the globe have already implemented similar bans, and it is simply unacceptable that the UK is left lagging behind other countries with regard to animal welfare standards in circuses. Furthermore, recent research shows that animal freedoms and animal rights are not being adhered to, even though people care very much about them. That is why I am keen to speak in this debate.

Hon. Members have referred to various issues that will require work in Committee. They include the definition of a travelling circus; the powers to seize animals; liability; the disqualification of offenders from keeping wild animals; and the power of entry. I am sure that all those details can be dealt with in Committee. A key issue is the definition of a travelling circus, and I hope that great consideration will be given to ensuring that people’s concerns are addressed in that respect.

I am glad to see this Bill coming forward, but a lot of other important animal legislation is needed and my constituents are certainly keen to see it passed. The issue of recognising animal sentience has been mentioned, as has the fact that we missed the opportunity to include that in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We have also talked about longer sentences for animal cruelty and about extending the scope of the Ivory Act 2018, which will be familiar territory for many people in the Chamber today.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the fate of the animals that are currently in circuses. Can he confirm that what happens to them will be monitored? The question of monitoring is a consistent theme when we look at legislation to protect wildlife; it was also discussed during the passage of the Ivory Bill. The same concerns apply to the strengthening of the National Wildlife Crime Unit. Can the Minister confirm that the unit’s funding will be continued?

Draft Veterinary Medicines and Animals and Animal Products (Examination of Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Liz Twist Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 General Committees

[David Rutley]

The arrangements that I am talking about are UK-wide; we are bringing what currently sits in EU law into, and across, the UK. If the hon. Gentleman wants further clarification, I can seek some inspiration, but it is a UK-wide statutory instrument.

In line with the Government’s better regulation principles, a formal impact assessment has not been carried out because the costs involved are small. The impact on businesses has been assessed as well below the threshold requiring an impact assessment. It is vital that marketing authorisation holders can be held accountable for their products, and this regulation provides for that.

Part 4 of the instrument sets out the necessary amendments to retained EU regulations that become UK law as provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is linked to another instrument: the Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which transfers the power to set maximum residue limits to the UK from the European Commission, and is yet to be debated in this House.

European regulation 470/2009 sets out how maximum residue limits for substances used as veterinary medicines are set. MRLs are the maximum safe limit of a particular substance in produce from animals. These limits are used to establish withdrawal periods—the period that must elapse after the last administration of a medicine before produce from that animal may enter the food chain. Without these amendments, the UK would be unable to regulate the marketing and use of veterinary medicines effectively. That would have negative impacts on businesses and our ability to protect human and animal health and the environment.

Although a formal public consultation has not been carried out, and has not been required under existing guidelines, the Government have proactively engaged with the animal health industry to discuss how we ensure that the regulatory regime continues to function effectively after exit day. Lord Gardiner of Kimble has met the veterinary pharmaceutical industry association, the National Office of Animal Health, on a number of occasions as part of our extensive engagement. Officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate continue to hold regular meetings with key industry representatives. The industry has welcomed our proactive and continued engagement with it. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters they have given their consent.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I would like to ask about the different standards in different UK devolved areas and when it comes to trading with other countries. Is there not a risk that we will have different standards as time goes on? We therefore need co-operation to ensure that we can continue to trade effectively.

[David Rutley]

Well, we will be leaving the EU, so we need our own mechanisms in place to validate veterinary medicines. That is primarily what we are talking about here. We are bringing back to the UK powers by which medicines are authorised. We will carry on doing that. As it happens, most authorisations already take place in the UK. Unlike for some medicines used for humans, veterinary medicine authorisations often take place in the national states themselves. It will be important to maintain high standards. The hon. Lady and I have exchanged views on that matter in other situations, and I know that she will continue to hold me and the Government to account on these matters. The steps that we are taking in this legislation will bring across powers that are currently in the EU so that we can do what currently takes place. The only thing that is different is the market authorisations. We are requiring those entities to have a market presence in the UK, but at a very low cost. That is the approach we felt was most appropriate to get the balance right.

The Government are committed to ensuring continued levels of protection for human and animal health, as well as making it straightforward for businesses to put medicines and relevant food products on the market, ensuring that UK businesses and individuals continue to have access to a range of veterinary medicines. This instrument will help to maintain the established veterinary medicines and residues surveillance regimes, and will ensure that an effective regulatory framework for veterinary medicines is in place. This instrument does no more than is appropriate to remedy deficiencies in law arising from leaving the EU. For the reasons I have set out, I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

No-deal EU Exit: Public Sector Catering

Liz Twist Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am really grateful that my hon. Friend has made that point. The average person spends 17% to 18% of their income on food, but people living on benefits and in poverty spend around 42% of their money on food, and that is at today’s prices. We do not need a mathematician to work out what a vulnerable position people will be in if food prices go up. Even the 6% increase would have a detrimental effect.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there must also be a concern about food banks, and especially about schemes such as FareShare and organisations such as the Pickle Palace in my constituency that provide low-cost meals and “pay-what-you-can” food for people on low incomes.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is another very good point. Often, those who supply local authority caterers are some of the best for supplying food banks and FareShare. When they have to trim and trim again, that will be one of the charitable aspects of their operations that will sadly have to go. Again, that will have a knock-on effect on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Horse Tethering

Liz Twist Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

My hon. Friend is right about damage to the environment, and I urge colleagues to look at some of the photos of horses that have been treated so badly. I mentioned the pony in south Bristol that was tied to a tree, and the surrounding area was a small stretch of grass between a pavement and the road. Yes, there was huge damage to the local environment, but there was damage to the pony, too.

The code of practice informs us that tethering is not a suitable long-term method of managing horses, as does the RSPCA, the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and Redwings, but absolutely nothing can be done legally to prevent someone from tethering a horse for its whole life.

Further, long-term tethering directly infringes the five freedoms set out by the Animal Welfare Act 2006: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

A tethered horse is not free to express natural behaviours. A horse that is free to roam will, on average, walk or run 10.6 miles a day, and the reality is that a tethered horse can come nowhere near that. As my many colleagues who keep horses can attest to, horses are flight animals. A horse’s most basic instinct is to flee from danger, which tethering does not allow. Tethering restricts a horse’s most natural behaviour.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A large number of my constituents who have seen horses tethered locally have contacted me to express their concern about these issues.

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are seeing horses being tethered all across the country, potentially leaving them open to neglect, cruelty and abuse, and potentially posing a danger to the people around them, too.

Tethering is not deemed enough of a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to allow horse charities to intervene. A tethered horse also does not have the freedom to interact with its own species, as the Act says it should. Leaving horses isolated has been shown to increase stress levels and stress-related hormones, which can cause them to display stereotypical behaviours that cause physical and psychological harm.

Stereotypical behaviours are strongly linked to isolated horses; stabled horses tend to perform behaviours that engage with the stable around them, such as crib biting or weaving. Horses that are tethered long term have a total lack of environmental stimuli, so they are much more likely to develop stereotypical behaviours such as pacing or self-mutilation. This clearly raises questions about the clarity of the existing legislation and regulations on the grounds for removing a horse from a tether and on the capacity of law enforcers to act.

Long-term tethering is in direct conflict with legislation, yet in many instances authorities have not felt that the Animal Welfare Act is strong enough grounds to rescue horses, despite the obvious suffering. It is therefore my belief, and the belief of the charity that initiated this campaign, that the Act needs to be amended to state explicitly what constitutes inappropriate tethering.

One of the reasons why this is such an emotive subject is the location of tethered horses. As I said earlier, the main purpose of long-term tethering is free grazing, so horses end up on any strip of grass available, with the roadside, grass verges and even the middle of roundabouts, as we have seen in south Gloucestershire, being popular choices. It goes without saying that this is not remotely appropriate. Horses are easily spooked by traffic, and if the tether were to fail, there would be a loose horse on the road.

Advances in equine and animal science mean that we are much more able to understand what constitutes poor welfare, but our laws have not caught up with that deeper understanding. When I met HorseWorld staff, who are so passionate about what they do, I was told about a pregnant mare that escaped her tether and got on to a busy A road, where she narrowly avoided being hit by a lorry. Police had to attend the scene to monitor the horse until HorseWorld could assemble a team at 3 am. If the tethering laws were stricter, the lives of the mare and her unborn foal would not have been risked, a lorry driver would not have had to make an emergency stop on a main road and numerous hours of police time would not have been wasted.

That leads me on to my second point, which has been raised by other equine welfare charities in a number of reports: only appointed animal welfare officers or police constables have the authority to seize an animal. However, councils are in no way mandated to employ an animal welfare officer, so many choose not to do so. Our understanding is that as many as 40% of councils do not employ an animal welfare officer. In these areas, the police are the only organisation that has the power to rescue an animal from a situation where its welfare is compromised. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on what steps he is taking to gain a deeper understanding of the depth of the problem. The result of this situation is that police time is being spent attending horse rescues, which often just involve hours spent holding a horse at the side of the road when it had got on to the road. Only a police constable, once contacted, can authorise a charity to remove a horse. It is clear from written parliamentary questions I have tabled that the Government have no idea about the amount of police time that is spent dealing with these incidents. Clearly, police time can be better spent in the community. Having clarity over who should be dealing with equine welfare complaints will reduce the time that it takes to deal with them and will save the lives of animals. The councils that do employ animal welfare officers need to ensure that they are trained to handle horses. That could easily be achieved by collaborating with voluntary organisations.

Let me now address what needs to change. In the past, DEFRA Ministers have said that the current legislation appropriately meets the needs of tethered horses. The 19,000 people who signed a petition to get the tethered horses rescued from Rovers Way in Cardiff would disagree. The 12,000 people who have emailed their MPs about getting tethering laws tightened would disagree. I also think that all the experts who have been in touch with me and the voluntary organisations calling for stricter laws on tethering would also disagree.

There are therefore four changes that I would like to see incorporated into the 2006 Act to improve the lives of horses. The first is that there should be a 24-hour legal limit on how long horses can be tethered for. That is important, because DEFRA’s code of practice states that long-term tethering is inappropriate. That needs to be clarified, backed up and given status in law. The second is that there needs to be a complete ban on tethering horses on the roadside or in dangerous locations. The third is that if a tether is someone’s only method of keeping an animal, they should not be allowed to keep that animal. The fourth is to make it a mandatory duty for local councils to employ an animal welfare officer or to ensure that arrangements are in place with neighbouring authorities to ensure that those officers are in place.

There is currently too much room for interpretation within the legislation. It needs to be clear-cut that long-term tethering infringes on equine welfare, leaving horses at risk of harm and suffering. We need to give the relevant authorities the means and confidence to rescue horses that desperately need protection. We need to step up and take action to protect these most majestic and iconic animals. Making these changes will protect thousands of horses across our country. Minister, please help us and break the chain.

Equitable Life

Liz Twist Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the eloquent and succinct right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for their work as chair and co-chair of the all-party group in fighting for justice for Equitable Life policyholders.

I make no apology for repeating some of what has already been said, and I am sure others will do the same. It is a disgrace that there are over 1 million victims of this pensions scandal. It is even more disgraceful that it is 11 years since the ombudsman said that victims had lost their pensions because of a decade of serious serial regulatory maladministration, and it is a total disgrace that, despite the Treasury admitting it had blame for the scandal, these policyholders still have not been compensated in full.

The north-east regional branch of EMAG has advised me that there are over 2,000 victims of this scandal in North Tyneside. In recent years I have been contacted by several constituents who are rightly aggrieved because they have received only just over 22% of their pension pot. One constituent is in the group of around 8,500 people who are considered the oldest and most vulnerable— the pre-1992 policyholders—and who have been treated less favourably than those who bought their annuities later. I spoke to him yesterday, ahead of this debate, and he pointed out that, sadly, a number of these annuitants are no longer with us, as other colleagues have also mentioned. He is particularly concerned that the Government keep safe the data relating to Equitable Life annuitants until the money is available to recompense those who have lost out. I hope the Minister will reassure my constituent on that request today.

My constituent is, of course, correct in pointing out that some victims will never see justice done. No one is getting any younger, and it is heartbreaking that thousands upon thousands of Equitable Life victims, through no fault of their own, have been left without the security they thought they had wisely invested in for their old age.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I am one of the 2017 intake who have been contacted by constituents affected by this. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we want people to save for their future through a pension, we have to put right the wrongs that have been done? Modest people who saved well for their pension have now lost out in their old age.

[Mary Glindon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which I will be addressing later.

It is frustrating for us to know that justice has not been done, but how much worse must be the anger and frustration of those who feel cheated? Today’s motion specifically calls upon the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal, with the end of austerity now in sight. EMAG’s demands have been put forward reasonably. As the Chancellor announced in the Budget that austerity is over, it seems that the statement by one of the Minister’s predecessors, following a meeting with an APPG delegation two years ago, that the demands—the payment scheme funding for the pre-1992 annuitants and the £2.6 billion funding to recompense fully the 895,000 victims—could not be met because of public purse constraints, even if they were spread over a period, and because it would run contrary to the Government’s efforts to restore sustainability to the public finances, is no longer applicable. That has been mentioned by previous speakers, and I think the Minister will hear it again.

Paying these victims what they are owed will not only be doing what is right but will send out the message that people can and should save for their retirement, in the knowledge that the Government will protect them if such a scandal, heaven forbid, were ever to happen again. I hope the Minister will be able to assure Members present that the Equitable Life victims we represent are no longer subject to the constraints of austerity. It is shameful that the years of austerity were ever used as an excuse for the Government to deny their responsibility for paying these pensioners and future pensioners their entitlement.

My message to the Minister and the whole Treasury is that, in these times of trouble and uncertainty, they should take the opportunity to restore some faith in the Government and our Parliament by, at last, paying the Equitable Life policyholders their rightful due.