UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Tonia Antoniazzi

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I have led two Westminster Hall debates for the Petitions Committee on the subject of assisted dying. I have grappled with this subject, and I still do. When my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) was speaking earlier, I had a packet of tissues, and I made swift work of them. It really is so difficult for so many us, with our personal experience and our own thoughts.

    It is genuinely our privilege to be able to say that this is what we want or what we do not want. We may not be facing this right now in our lives, but when you are, you think about it deeply. I will be voting for the Bill today. I think about this all the time—I need to maybe get a bit of a life—because it really is something that bothers me. It is an honour for all of us in the Chamber to be able to debate this today, whatever our views. I have to say, this is just not easy. I want everybody out there to know that it is not easy. It is really difficult, and it is difficult for those on both sides of the debate.

    I will get to the Bill now, because as has been pointed out, we are here to talk about the Bill, not to get overly emotional. I want to talk about how it impacts Wales. I hope we will be able amend the Bill to take consideration of these things, and I hope that we can look at this in detail in the Lords. I believe that the Bill should pass today, because we need to discuss it and know how it is going to work. As it is currently drafted, we will need to look to the Welsh Government to see if there needs to be a legislative consent motion, because it does not seem to engage with the Sewel convention in a substantive way.

    Issues that have been raised with me include that the Bill places multiple duties on the Secretary of State in England around codes of practice and ensuring assistance within the NHS. The Welsh Government need to be happy with the Secretary of State in England deciding how services are to be provided within the Welsh NHS. There will need to be an amendment, which I suspect will then engage with the Sewel convention.

    The need for subordinate legislation to enact the Bill is really complicated, and we need to see how it will be passed in this place. There are issues around the codes of practice, because some of them are devolved. I want to highlight that, because regardless of the emotional stories that we will hear today, we need to mindful that the Bill has an impact on legislation in Wales. It is very important that if the Bill does go through today, those discussions are had, because everybody’s life matters, and we have to get this legislation right.

    I do not want to take up any more time, but I thank all my hon. Friends and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who has been an absolute gem.

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Prescription Charges for People Aged 60 or Over

    The speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 594390, relating to prescription charges for people aged 60 or over.

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The petition I am presenting touches on a number of incredibly important issues in healthcare from access to treatment to public health and preventative care, all within the context of how the NHS adapts to an ageing population. Although the petition focuses on prescription charges, it must be considered in the broader economic context of the cost of living crisis, with months of rising prices and inflation where even the most basic necessities are becoming luxury items for many.

    The steady rise of pensioner poverty since 2015 shows no sign of stopping, continuing a trajectory that will see millions of us face a retirement dominated by debt and hardship. That context means we are duty-bound to look beyond figures on spreadsheets and examine what the proposed scrapping of free prescriptions for that age group would mean for those who would be impacted by it. It is those impacts that the petition creator Peter had in mind when he set it up.

    When I spoke to Peter about why he started the petition, he shared his concern about the impact these changes would have not on him, but on his local community—the men and women who are already struggling with costs and are making difficult choices about what to prioritise. It is people like him who have spent a lifetime working in industry and those who, because of that work, now suffer from a variety of medical conditions, each needing different medications. It is those women, including his wife, who had their lives upended by the callous way the Government implemented the equalising of the state pension age. WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, who were born in the 1950s and live in England, have further issues to deal with compared with those in devolved countries.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    Uprating the age when prescriptions become free in England to be in line with the state pension age, as the Government consulted on, would be harmful given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Lady said, and the growing economic activity in those over 50 for various reasons, including their health. Does she share my concern about what this could mean for ease of access to medical treatment for the older generation?

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. It is, indeed, a huge concern that people with multiple health problems are facing extra difficulties in accessing prescriptions and are having to make those difficult choices about how they spend their money.

    For Peter, it seems that something has gone incredibly wrong to get us to this point—something broader than this planned introduction of charges, but something encapsulated by it. It is the breaking of a promise—the promise between citizen and state and the promise that a lifetime of contribution, whether financial through tax and national insurance or through the unpaid labour of care that enables our economy to function, means support in retirement. Peter kept his part of the bargain. It was great to have a conversation with him. He could not believe that his petition was being debated in this place, and it is so important that his voice and the voices of others are heard in this place. He kept his part of the bargain, first in the shipyards on the Tyne and then working on aircraft. He paid in and did what was expected, as did hundreds of thousands of others, but the Government have not held up their end of the bargain. They have changed the rules, and it looks like they will do so again. That unfairness is the reason why we are discussing the matter today.

    The plan to introduce charges seems particularly unfair when Peter does not even have to look that far from home to see a better way. England is the only nation in the United Kingdom without free prescriptions and, as colleagues may have guessed from my accent, I am Welsh. I have the great pleasure of representing Gower, one of the three Swansea constituencies, which is beautiful. If anyone ever wants to visit, please do.

    Swansea and Newcastle have a lot in common: both are port cities with a proud industrial heritage; both are famous for an excellent night out. It seems the height of unfairness to many in Newcastle and across England that they alone in the United Kingdom pay for prescriptions. I am sure that the Government will tell us that several conditions are exempt and that pre-payment certificates cut costs, but, as I said earlier, we must look beyond the briefings to the reality of the system actually. The exemptions list is not only woefully out of date but, apart from the addition of cancer in 2009, it has not been reviewed since 1968. It also does not cover several life-changing conditions, such as Parkinson’s, arthritis, asthma, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, lupus or motor neurone disease.

    That is the tip of the iceberg. People with those conditions, and other complex, lifelong conditions, still pay for their prescriptions. For those with multiple, co-existing conditions, the cost is even higher. Evidence from the Prescription Charges Coalition, a group of 50 organisations calling on the Government to scrap prescription charges for people with long-term conditions in England, shows that people with long-term conditions struggle to pay for their medication. A third of respondents in England with long-term conditions reported that they had not collected a prescription item due to the cost. Nearly a third admitted that they are skipping or reducing medication doses, with cost concerns a key factor for more than four out of 10. As a direct result of reducing or skipping medications, nearly three in five—59%—became more ill, and 34% needed to visit their GP or hospital. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment on the introduction of charges highlighted that issue and noted the potential effect on people’s health.

    In 2018, thousands of over-the-counter medicines were taken off the list of those that GPs are able to prescribe, leaving those with long-term conditions facing additional costs for their conditions and to stay well. Those worrying health outcomes come with a cost to the NHS. Several member organisations of the PCC conducted research last year. They found that, of those surveyed, one in six of those with asthma and lung disease had cut back on using their potentially life-saving inhalers, as they were worried about the cost; 29% of respondents with cystic fibrosis reported that they had skipped their medication due to prescription charges; and one in five people with multiple sclerosis say that they do not have enough money to pay for the medication or treatment they need.

    One lady who lives with kidney disease was hospitalised twice because she had to wait until payday to collect a prescription. In hospital, she had to have a lumbar puncture and an MRI scan, which cost the NHS thousands of pounds more than the prescription would have. As colleagues can see, the impact is vast and, when meeting campaigners prior to this debate, I heard far too many stories like that one. The lived reality of those impacted by this proposed change and the issues caused by the current dysfunctional exemptions system are best understood through that lens.

    I work closely with Parkinson’s UK, which is one of the many organisations deeply concerned by this proposal. Medication is the only way to control the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease; most have to take a cocktail of medications to stay well. Research shows that Parkinson’s cost households over £19,000 a year in 2021, due to loss of work; and additional health and social care costs. As Parkinson’s progresses, it becomes more complex. Among people eligible to pay for prescriptions who are aged 60, in any year 5.5% will die within five years and 23.8% will need support to live independently—that is within only five years of being diagnosed. However, they would still have to pay for their essential medications for Parkinson’s.

    I want to tell the Chamber a little about Denise. She is 59 and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in April 2019. She has had to reduce her working hours from 37.5 to only 12 per week, due to her symptoms. She uses a prepayment certificate for her prescriptions, because it is cheaper than purchasing them individually. If the exemption age rises to 66, however, she will have to continue paying for them.

    Denise told Parkinson’s UK about the impact that that would have on her:

    “I always thought I would work until I was 67, because I would be able to. However, as my Parkinson’s advances I worry about whether I physically will be able to. My employer is really understanding, allowing flexibility to start later in the mornings until my medication has kicked in, but I have already had to reduce my hours by 60% and I’m already noticing the impact of this reduced earning capacity on our household.

    I have to pay for my prescriptions, and this is eating into the diminishing amount I can contribute towards the household bills. If they were to increase the age at which I become exempt, it would be really tough because we haven’t allowed for more years of these additional charges.

    It feels like the Government is once again penalising those living with a long-term condition like Parkinson’s that anyone could get and for which currently there is no cure.”

    Denise’s story is not an isolated one. Parkinson’s is not the only condition whose sufferers will be further disadvantaged by the change, but this is not a problem that will be solved by changing the exemption list. An exemption list has winners and losers baked into its design, and the complexities of managing chronic conditions mean that any approach that is not universal is not fit for purpose.

    Furthermore, the Government need to answer why the change is being prioritised now. What evidence is there that it will have any kind of positive impact? We cannot see one. Even if the Government make savings in the short term, the long-term impacts could be catastrophic, leading to greater illness and to more GP and hospital visits.

    A poll published in Pulse found that 40% of GPs linked prescription charges to adverse patient outcomes, also indicating that those could lead to far greater costs and more adverse outcomes down the line. Initial results of the 2023 survey by the Prescription Charges Coalition showed that nearly 10% of respondents had not collected medicine due to cost. Of that group—I have more data —30.74% said that they now have other physical health problems, in addition to their original health condition; 30.33% said that they had to go to their GP; 17.32% said that they had to go into hospital for treatment; and 8.32% said that they had to go to A&E.

    Research published in 2018 by York Health Economics Consortium highlighted how ending prescription charges for long-term conditions could save money and reduce pressure on the NHS. That comes from preventing avoidable health complications that occur when people do not take their medication. The research identified net savings of more than £20 million per year if the NHS scrapped prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease alone. Instead, the Government are discussing introducing additional charges. That flies in the face of common sense.

    We know that the NHS is under pressure, but that is the case across the United Kingdom, and the devolved nations are not even discussing removing universal free prescriptions. I urge the Government to follow that lead, to look to the future and not to engage in short-termist, quick fixes that will not be a fix for all, and not for the petition creator.

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2023 Speech on Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

    The speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in Westminster Hall on 9 January 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 607317, relating to requirements to stop and report road traffic collisions involving cats.

    It is indeed a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Harris. The petition calls for Parliament to amend legislation

    “to make it a legal requirement for a driver to stop & report accidents involving cats.”

    It has been signed by 102,436 people throughout the UK, with the highest number in Tunbridge Wells. It is often said that Britain is a nation of animal lovers. As I am sure all Members’ inboxes will attest, issues of animal welfare, from the use of animals in research to livestock transport, move people from all walks of life to engage with their representatives.

    As a nation, we are particularly attached to our pets. According to the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, around 52% of UK adults own a pet. Our pets play a huge part in our lives and many of us consider our pet another member of the family. Although dogs are the most common pet in the UK, cats are not far behind: one in four households are home to at least one cat. The choice of a cat as a pet is often not understood; non-cat owners may wonder what is to be gained from a pet who operates completely on their own terms. Cat owners will know that that is just one part of the mystique of having a cat. Cats Protection’s 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report found that

    “companionship, reducing loneliness, and reducing stress were collectively the top reasons for owning a cat”.

    Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that we have seen, certainly during the covid pandemic, the ownership of cats and dogs increase because of the companionship that they offer? That is particularly important for people who live on their own. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is heartbreaking for an animal to be run over, whether it be a dog or a cat, and for the owner in many cases never to find out what actually happened. Cats are pets and should be treated in the same way as dogs.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. It is true: we love our pets and they are a huge part of the fabric of our families and our lives. He is right that we saw an increase in ownership during in covid, and that the necessary measures must be put in place so that there is not such heartache—I will go on to talk about that—when pets disappear and are unaccounted for.

    We have spoken about the importance of pet cats for the wellbeing of their owners, especially during covid, and in relation to loneliness. The Cats Protection report also showed that 92% of owners see their cat as part of the family and that 67% say their cat gives them something to get up for in the morning. Alongside their independent nature, inquisitiveness and aloofness, that has helped them to be one of our favourite pets.

    It is a reflection of the nation’s love of animals that the UK ranks highly on the world stage in respect of animal welfare, but there are gaps in the legislation, particularly in relation to our feline companions. We do all that we can to protect our pets, but sometimes it is not enough. The sadness of losing a pet—a part of the family—is only exacerbated by not knowing what has happened. That sad state of affairs is the reality for many cat owners across the United Kingdom. For many of them, a missing pet will lead to an assumption that the cat been hit by a vehicle and simply left by the roadside to be picked up by the local authority’s refuse services. I know that is a blunt description.

    Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

    The hon. Lady is making such an important speech, and this debate is vital to many constituents. Does she agree that further support should be given to local authorities to ensure they have the necessary resources to scan cats when they are found—and dogs too—and make sure that owners are notified?

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. I will go on to talk about local authorities, but it is a case of them having the necessary resources to be able to scan animals and know that they are accounted for.

    The petitioner, Olivia, is here in the Gallery and is an avid campaigner for the protection of cats. When we spoke before Christmas she was thankful that the situation when she lost her cat was not the same as the one I have described. Their beloved cat, who was very much part of the family, was killed by a car; however, a good-hearted neighbour who found the cat knocked on all the doors until the owner was found in order to let them know. It should not be down to luck or a good Samaritan.

    Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

    The hon. Lady makes an important point. Most residents of our communities would want to do the right thing. They would want to make an owner aware of the tragedy that had happened because they would appreciate the hurt and sadness the family would feel and would not want to leave them in the dark. Does the hon. Lady agree that groups such as Cats Protection Giffnock in my constituency have done really valuable work on this issue? They ought to be commended for making sure that it is kept in the public eye. I hope we see some progress.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Doing the right thing gives us heart, does it not? The work of Cats Protection and all the organisations that have campaigned for cats is to be commended, because it is excellent in keeping the issue in the public eye, which is really important.

    Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)

    I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue. I introduced a presentation Bill on the compulsory microchipping of cats, and we are waiting for legislation to come in. I thank the Government for that.

    The second part of my Bill was on the issue of reporting after an accident. Of course the great majority of people in our great country would do the right thing, but it comes down to a basic principle: parity of esteem. People love their dogs and cats. We currently have legislation under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that covers horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats and dogs, but not cats. People in my constituency and throughout the country ask, “Why not?” If the primary objective is to alleviate pain and suffering, we need to make sure we have parity for cats.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Member for his very good contribution. Unfortunately, the 1988 Act was not put in place with this issue in mind, but I am going to talk about the microchipping issue that he has done significant work on.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    Following on from what the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, the Government previously committed to bringing forward regulations to make cat microchipping compulsory before the end of last year. Many charities are concerned that they have not yet been laid; does the hon. Lady share those concerns?

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. That is exactly what I am going to talk about. I agree that the microchipping legislation should be brought forward.

    Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to stop and report incidents of hitting a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The Act reflects an understanding of animals as having a financial value attached to them as livestock or working animals. As such, cats are not covered. The petitioner, Olivia, and organisations including Battersea and the Blue Cross want this to change.

    Because there is currently no legal requirement to report, we do not know how many cats are killed by vehicles. One needs only to have a quick search through their local area’s Facebook groups to know that. It is sadly very commonplace. Some 52% of respondents to the Petitions Committee’s survey for this debate said they had lost a cat as a result of a road traffic accident, with a further 40% suspecting that their cat had been killed but without any proof.

    The reality is that not all drivers comply with the 1988 Act as it stands. For example, one particular road in my constituency has become notorious for cattle deaths at night, with the deceased animals being found by other drivers in lighter hours and reported then. Whether or not there is a place for cats in the Act, we know that it is not fully fit for purpose as it stands. How can the Government help to ensure that cat owners such as Olivia are not left in limbo when it comes to losing their beloved pet?

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    I had the pleasure of hosting a Cats Protection event just before Christmas. Some 76 MPs and peers turned up, which shows where the sympathies of Members lie. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame the Government are out of step with the view of Members and that they should look at this matter again? They have dismissed it rather out of hand in their response to the petition, but this issue goes hand in hand with microchipping. The Government said they would bring forward microchipping by the end of last year; they should now do so, in tandem with introducing provisions on reporting.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for hosting Cats Protection before Christmas. That event really was well attended. The point of such events is to raise awareness of legislation that is not fit for purpose and to talk to peers and Members of Parliament about the importance of cats. We do not need a huge uprooting of legislation to get this right: small changes would make a huge difference to cats and cat owners.

    First, we need the Government to finally make good on their promise to make it a legal requirement for cats to be microchipped. In its 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report, Cats Protection estimated that 2.8 million cats are not microchipped, meaning they do not have any permanent identification. Microchipping is a hugely important part of responsible pet ownership, and making it compulsory for cat owners would send a vital message that it is an integral part of looking after a cat. The Government had planned to lay regulations by the end of 2022 to bring compulsory cat microchipping into force after a transition period, but sadly that has not yet happened. I would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm a timetable for the enactment of that legislation. He has a wonderful opportunity to come forward with that change, which the Government have supported.

    Secondly, requiring local authorities to scan and log cat fatalities would make a huge difference. National Highways contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform the owner of any domesticated animal fatality on main trunk roads, with keepers given the opportunity to come forward and collect their pet’s remains. The local authorities that cover the rest of the road network are duty-bound to remove deceased animals but not to scan and log, although many do—the situation is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, but the infrastructure already exists.

    By requiring local authorities to make attempts to identify cat fatalities, comfort and certainty can be given to owners whose cats are killed in accidents. A freedom of information request carried out by Cats Protection in May 2019 found that 92% of local councils in England have some sort of arrangement in place to scan cats, but only 75% inform the chip company. It is clear that there is a lack of consistency on this front, and intervention from the Government would only improve the situation.

    It is true that cats and dogs, while both beloved choices of pet, have different legal standings. We should be creating parity between the two and making things less difficult. Dog owners are legally required to keep their dog under control in public, whereas cats are said to have the right to roam, although owners are still responsible for making sure that their cats do not cause injury or damage to property. The so-called right to roam has often ended conversations on cat welfare legislation, for reasons I have already discussed, but that need not be the case.

    Unlike so many of the issues we discuss within these walls, this is not a complex problem. The infrastructure needed to implement the changes already exists and charities such as Cats Protection are already working with local authorities to provide scanners and support their work. The changes requested may not save cats, but they can prevent any added heartbreak. I extend my deepest thanks to Olivia for starting the petition and starting the conversation. She is asking not for an overhaul of legislation but just the chance for other owners to feel the closure that she has felt at such a traumatic time.

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    The speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    Like so many of my colleagues, I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have been in touch with me over the past few weeks. They are terrified about the consequences of the triple lock being scrapped—terrified because of what they are reading in the newspapers. One article in The Times today says that the Bank will raise interest rates again. Another article tells us that food price inflation will cost shoppers another £682 a year. Such headlines should be taken very seriously.

    The cost of living crisis and soaring inflation are pushing food and energy prices to unprecedented highs. The decision to suspend the triple lock last year cost someone on the full new state pension £487 a year, and someone on the full basic state pension £373 a year. With inflation set to exceed 8% this year, pensioners are already facing a significant real-terms fall in income. We do not need a crystal ball to see where this is headed: the most vulnerable pensioners look to be plunged further into poverty.

    The Cabinet seem to have wiped their memories of their involvement in the previous Government, and indeed in the Governments of the past 12 years, but let me remind them of the fact that it is not only the disastrous mini-Budget of a few weeks ago that has brought us here, but pensioner poverty, which has been rising for a decade.

    Anthony Browne

    The hon. Member said that it was terrifying that we may not have the triple lock. I agree that it is terrifying not implementing a Conservative policy. She said that she wanted to remind the Government of what has happened. Let me remind the Labour party, which has been criticising Government policy, that we have systematically, over the past 12 years, had a far more generous state policy scheme than we had under 13 years of the last Labour Government, when we only had inflation or 2.5%, and we never had the triple lock.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    The hon. Member’s intervention misses the point by quite a margin, because pensioner poverty has been on the rise regardless.

    The promise of this society is that we support everyone not just to survive, but to thrive. The Government seem to believe that pensions are some sort of nice extra, but that is not the case. The UK’s state pension, which is one of the least generous in the developed world, is seen as something for which pensioners should be grateful. No, they should not be grateful, because they have paid into it.

    The audacity of the Government is clear. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, the like of which we have not seen for decades, they turn around to people who have paid their taxes and earned a decent retirement and tell them that, instead of the state supporting them in their retirement, they will plunge them into poverty. Breaking the 2019 Tory manifesto commitment to the triple lock for the second year in a row will leave more than 18,000 pensioners in Gower, on average, £905 worse off. Those are the statistics for my constituents.

    When my constituents write to me asking how they will pay their bills this winter, how they will put food on the table, and why they are paying the price for Tory economic incompetence, what would the Minister tell them and what would she have me tell them?

  • Tonia Antoniazzi – 2020 Speech on the Immigration Bill

    Tonia Antoniazzi – 2020 Speech on the Immigration Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2020.

    I find it extraordinary that, even in the midst of the current pandemic, the Government have not recognised, or do not care about, the implications of the Bill for those who are out there working to keep us alive, keeping the country moving, looking after our vulnerable people and supporting every aspect of our much-changed lives. Some on the Government Benches would like us to think of those people as low-skilled and low-value, but to be deemed low-skilled is in itself insulting. To value a person’s worth based on the amount of money they earn is offensive. It is particularly indecent now, when we see these key workers keeping Britain going. This is not what we teach our children in schools, and these are not the values of the communities of Gower that I represent.

    The Home Secretary has said that the new points system will be a

    “firmer, fairer and simpler system that will attract the people we need to drive our country forward…laying the foundation for a high-wage, high-skill, productive economy”.

    In theory, it all sounds rather sensible, but the proposed system is more of an income-based system, and it is a blunt tool that masks the other skills and qualities that immigrants bring to the UK. George Bernard Shaw said:

    “Between persons of equal income there is no social distinction except the distinction of merit. Money is nothing: character, conduct, and capacity are everything.”

    But this is not just about the value of these workers at this time. Immigration should be valued and celebrated at all times. I said in my maiden speech nearly three years ago:

    “The freedom of movement and opportunities afforded to my forefathers is close to my heart. I will fight for those rights to continue, not just for my child but for the children of Gower and Wales.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 817.]

    By ending free movement, the UK will become less accessible to highly skilled EEA migrants who can work or study elsewhere in Europe without a visa. If the cost and burden of entering the UK become too high, it will be other countries that benefit from the transfer of knowledge, expertise, investment and culture.

    The Government are ploughing through with the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill while the public are distracted. They continue to make meaningless gestures to the key workers ​such as carers, shop workers and those in public services who are keeping the economy and society going throughout these really troubled times. A significant pay rise is what all key workers need, not another Thursday evening photo opportunity. If there was ever a time to recognise the contribution of immigrant workers in the NHS and other vital jobs, it is now, during this crisis. The Labour party stands up for all the people who have chosen to make the UK their home and who now find themselves, as essential workers, putting their lives on the line to keep the rest of us going.

    As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I share the concerns of cancer charities and others about the Bill undermining many of our already stretched public services. Analysis by Macmillan shows that the Government’s plan for a points-based immigration system will have a real detrimental effect on our health and social care system, which is already under record pressure. To mitigate this, Macmillan is calling for a separate migration route for social care, and asking for social care workers to be included on the shortage occupation list and exempt from the visa salary threshold. Workers and employers need clarity about what specific measures will be put in place to protect the NHS and social care workforces, and they especially need further details of what the NHS visa and an equivalent social care visa would involve. The Home Secretary needs to set out what specific protections a specialist visa would afford, which staff are eligible to apply, and how and when they should apply.

    More urgently, will the Home Secretary clarify why the Government have not offered to extend the visas of those working in social care in the same way that they have for those working in the NHS as a result of the coronavirus? The shortage occupation list is nowhere near dynamic enough to respond to workplace shortages within the desired timeframe, so what measures will the Government take to support the already dilapidated social care sector if this new immigration policy deters vital migrant workers from joining the sector? All this uncertainty is—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes. We now go to Sir John Hayes in South Holland and The Deepings.