 Tonia Antoniazzi, MP for Gower has argued that Ministers are forcing veterans to rely on universal credit during the cost of living crisis. Government figures have revealed that up to 70,000 veterans could now be claiming Universal Credit.
Ministers admitted for the first time last month that 33,800 veterans are currently receiving Universal Credit after serving their country, following parliamentary questions to Ministers from Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. However, these figures are drawn from an assessment of just 45% of claimants, meaning the actual figure could be more than double that. There are approximately 4500 veterans living in currently living in Swansea, roughly 3500 of which are of working age. A report by the Royal British Legion last year found that former personnel are less likely to be in full time or part-time work than the general population, and nearly twice as likely to be unemployed (11 per cent v 6 per cent). In 2019, the UK Government announced up to £6 million to fund more than 100 Armed Forces Champions in jobcentres. However, the Veterans Strategy Action Plan confirmed that Ministers were pushing ahead with plans for only 50 Armed Forces Champions. Tonia Antoniazzi MP for Gower, said “Ministers are forcing veterans to rely on universal credit during the cost of living crisis." “As veterans struggle with rising bills and inflation, the Government has still not revealed how many veterans in total are relying on universal credit, including in Gower, as well as explaining why they have picked this moment to cut employment support to former personnel in half. “We have a moral duty to our troops as they transition from military to civilian life and must ensure veterans are receiving the right welfare and employment support to get through the tough months ahead.”  Tonia Antoniazzi MP has joined a national campaign to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) and keep people in Gower safe.
Running from July 18 to 22, ASB Awareness Week – Making Communities Safer aims to encourage communities to take a stand against ASB and highlight the actions that can be taken by those experiencing it. Organised by Resolve, the UK’s leading ASB and community safety organisation, the week features a series of events all across the UK involving Councils, Police Forces, Housing Associations, charities, community groups and sports clubs. Recent YouGov research commissioned by Resolve found that more than half of people (57%) believe that ‘more needs to be done’ to tackle ASB in their community. However, after they witnessed or experienced ASB, a similar proportion of the public (53%) said that they did not report it to anyone. Tonia Antoniazzi MP is urging constituents not to suffer in silence if they experience ASB. Incidents can be reported to the anti-social behaviour team at the local Council, or to the Police if people feel that they are at immediate risk or in danger. Commenting, Tonia Antoniazzi MP said: “I am pleased to offer my support to ASB Awareness Week 2022, and I am committed to ensuring that everyone has the right to feel safe in their home and community. “I am aware from correspondence with constituents that ASB is a major area of public concern that needs to be addressed on both a local and national level.” “I’ve worked closely with police, PCSOs, and local councillors to tackle ASB head on and I’m pleased that so far we are not seeing a repeat of behaviour that was affecting residents across the constituency last year.” Rebecca Bryant OBE, Chief Executive of Resolve added: “ASB is not low-level crime. It can have a long-lasting impact on the lives of victims and communities and can be a precursor to more serious crime. “It is important that the challenge of ASB continues to be given the priority it needs so that people everywhere feel safe in their homes and communities. “We are delighted that Tonia Antoniazzi MP is supporting this hugely important campaign. It is vital to develop partnership approaches across communities to deal with the growing challenges around ASB.” For more information about ASB Awareness Week – visit www.resolveuk.org.uk/asbawarenessweek  An amber weather warning for extreme heat will be in place from 00:00 BST on Mon 18 July and will end on 23:59 BST on Tue 19 July. This means a hot spell is likely to develop from Sunday, likely peaking early next week, leading to widespread impacts on people and infrastructure.
Always check the weather before travelling. Working in extreme heat There’s no law on maximum working temperatures. However, during working hours the temperature in all indoor workplaces must be ‘reasonable’. What is reasonable will depend on your workplace, the type of work you do, whether you have any disabilities, medical conditions and other factors. Employers are also legally obliged to assess risks to the health and safety of their employees, and take action where necessary and where reasonably practicable. This includes workplace temperature. Employers should consult with health and safety reps and employees to agree sensible means to cope with high temperatures. These measures also apply if you are working from home. Make sure your employer is taking necessary steps to keep your workplace safe by:
If you aren't a member of a Trade Union, find out which union is right for you and sign up at www.tuc.org.uk/join-a-union Staying healthy during extreme hot weather Prolonged periods of extremely hot weather pose serious health risks. Excessive exposure to high temperatures can kill. Those most at risk include older people, very young children and people with pre-existing medical conditions. Stay out of the heat
Cool down
Keep your environment cool
Look out for others
If you have a health problem
If you or others feel unwell
Public health Wales has more help and advice available on their website.  This afternoon Parliament will be debating the use of real bearskin hats by the Queen’s Guards after an e-petition on the subject garnered 106,362 signatures but unfortunately, I will not be able to speak in this afternoon’s debate.
Many constituents will be aware that ECOPEL has offered to supply the Ministry of Defence with its faux fur alternative free-of-charge until 2030. However, the Government has stated that its analysis of recent testing of this material showed it met only one of the five requirements it considers necessary to be a viable alternative and it has no plans to take it forward as a replacement for the bearskin used in these caps. It has further stated that its suppliers source pelts made available by the Canadian authorities following a licensed cull to manage the wild bear population, and that there are strict laws and regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears within Canada and internationally. I am supportive of our armed forces and I believe that as a country we should strive to set the highest animal welfare standards. As such I share the concerns about the use of bearskins by the military. No bear should be hunted or killed to order for use by the Ministry of Defence. Now is the time for the UK Government to conduct a review of the Queen’s Guard’s caps, examining contracts, looking at costs and assessing cruelty free, sustainable alternatives. A future Labour Government would ensure that any such review would speak to our troops and ensure their views are part of any future decisions. Furthermore, there is nothing currently in law to stop farmed fur from being imported and sold in the UK. I know that a majority of people in the UK support the banning of importing and selling animal fur in the UK. I do not think we should be complicit in this cruel and inhumane practice, and I believe that we should ban the importation of fur all together. There should not be a fur trade that relies upon the suffering of animals abroad.  I want to thank constituents who have written to me regarding the distressing case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen who was detained in India in November 2017.
Mr Johal was arrested in 2017 after travelling to India for his wedding where he was tortured into making a so-called ‘confession’ to charges carrying the death penalty. He has now been detained for more than four years, is yet to stand trial in any case he stands accused in, and is being held at Delhi’s Tihar jail. He and his family strongly deny the allegations. Efforts to secure his release on bail have failed. I can only imagine what a distressing time this has been for Mr Johal and his family. I know that Mr Johal’s family has persistently raised his case with the Government. The Prime Minister has reportedly raised Mr Johal’s case with the Indian Prime Minister on several occasions. However, it is clear that more must be done, and the Prime Minister must officially request Mr Johal’s release. When a British national has been so gravely mistreated, with no legal basis, the Government must act decisively to negotiate their release. To exert maximum pressure and to ensure a coordinated approach, I will be supporting cross-party efforts towards securing Mr Johal’s release. Ministers and officials should continue to raise Mr Johal’s case with their Indian counterparts, calling for his release. Representations should also continue in relation to Mr Johal’s reports of torture, delays to legal proceedings, and the importance of Mr Johal’s right to a fair trial. The Foreign Office should also ensure that Mr Johal’s family continue to be informed about his welfare and any developments. I call on the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office to raise this case with the Indian government directly as a matter of urgency.  Tonia Antoniazzi MP, has pledged her support for cleaner air in celebration of Clean Air Day, in light of new regulations which will come into effect by October. Tonia said “Everyone deserves to breathe clean air: so it is concerning that there are neighbourhoods in south Wales and across the country that exceed safe pollution limits set by the World Health Organisation. “The government must act to ensure ambitious clean air targets are reached by 2030 rather than 2040, to save tens of thousands of lives from premature deaths caused by dirty air and billions of pounds. “Children are the most vulnerable to the effects of toxic air and we have a duty to ensure they are protected from harmful pollutants. Traffic controls outside schools at the start and end of the school day will help minimize our children’s exposure to air pollution and encourage more people to walk to school. “We also need to give people precise information from live air quality monitors about the level of pollution near their homes so that people can be empowered.” TRANSCRIPT:
I beg to move, that this House has considered e-petition 604383, relating to assisted dying. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Assisted dying is an emotive issue that I have thought about long and hard. I was grateful to the Petitions Committee and also to the creator of the petition, Sarah Wootton, for arranging a meeting with some of the families who have been through traumatic and upsetting experiences. I was really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Liz Carr, who has long campaigned against the introduction of assisted dying. Both meetings were very emotional, but I was able to get a much better understanding of the situation by having those important conversations, so I am extremely grateful to Emma from the Petitions Committee for organising them. My role today is to present this petition on behalf of the Committee, but I hope that I will be able to represent fairly the views of those I met. It was a real honour last week to meet the families who are here today in the room. Hearing their stories was emotional and informative. They spoke with dignity about their loved ones’ final days and weeks, and I am glad to see them here today. I hope that when making interventions in this debate Members will be mindful that this is a very real situation for many people here today. I also hope that Members will allow me the time to tell their stories without interruption. I understand that colleagues will want to make their own points, but plenty of time has been put aside for the debate this afternoon. Opinion polls have shown that there is wide support for a change in the law to make assisted dying legal in this country. Research commissioned by Dignity in Dying in 2019 showed that 84% of Britons supported assisted dying for terminally ill people. That is a huge proportion of people who would like to see a change in the way we deal with this situation. We have not had a debate on this issue in this place for two and a half years, and there has been no vote on it for seven. A lot has changed in that time, including a pandemic that has shifted the conversation that the country is having about death. There has also been a change in attitudes in other countries and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Jersey, Scotland and the Isle of Man are all looking at changes. Australia, New Zealand, Spain and others have all introduced measures around assisted dying. In our meeting, we spoke to Jan and her daughter Sarah. Jan is currently planning for the end of her life after receiving a terminal diagnosis. She explained to me that she has three options: going to a hospice, ending her life in a hospital, or receiving hospice care at home. Jan is worried that hospice at home care will cause untold problems for her family. Not only will it mean that her loved ones are largely responsible for her care in her final days, but there are long-term effects of the trauma that her dying at home will cause. Jan is worried that hospice care will not be appropriate and there will be limits on the number of people who will be able to visit her at the end of her life. Jan said that it would not be a good place for her to die. All she wants is a choice of a peaceful end surrounded those she loves. With no other viable option, Jan has signed up to Dignitas, so that when it comes, she has a choice about her end of life. That in itself causes problems, as she would probably have to do it before she is ready because she needs to travel independently. Jan and her daughter both spoke of the anxiety that it has caused them and their loved ones. The worry and anguish that the decision causes for many families was a theme through all the stories that I heard. I spoke to Carol, whose sister Alison died just over a year ago. Alison had head and neck cancer. She was only 63 years old. Her sister went through lots of treatment—radiotherapy and chemotherapy—and was given lots of opiates to deal with the pain. Alison was persuaded to go to a hospice for the end of life care that she needed, but only after her pain and anxiety became unmanageable. At the hospice, Carol noticed that the care that Alison was receiving was governed by strict protocols that were not appropriate for Alison’s needs. As a retired doctor, Carol thought that she would be able to advocate well for her sister, but that did not turn out to be the case. Alison saw eight different doctors in two months while she was at the hospice. She was given different information by different people. Some agency staff were not sufficiently trained in palliative care to look after Alison as well as they could. Protocols dictated that pain relief medication could only be increased by 25% in every 24 hours, but Alison had built up a tolerance to opiates over the course of her illness and was in an incredible amount of pain. All those things culminated in what Carol described as a horrible death, which left everyone traumatised—Alison’s husband and children, and Carol, too. Alison’s family stayed with her 24 hours a day in the last couple of weeks because she was so anxious about a lack of medicine. I also met Gareth. Gareth’s dad had prostate cancer. He lived for 10 years on hormone treatment. When he was given his diagnosis, as a military man who always had guns, he said, “I’ll just shoot myself.” No one thought he was serious, but Gareth said that it gave him an element of control. As his illness got worse, Gareth said it was like his dad was “dying in front of our eyes.” He had no quality of life. Finally, Gareth’s dad said that he was ready to go into a hospice, but that did not seem to be his intention. One day, Gareth’s dad rang him to say that he could not deal with another night like the last one and said, “I’m going to shoot myself. See ya.” Gareth immediately rang his dad back, but his dad did not speak. Gareth rang the police. He spoke to his sister, who lived close by, and she rushed to her dad’s house. Gareth’s sister went in, hoping that she would be in time to stop her dad, but he had already shot himself in the head. Gareth’s sister’s husband was also, at the time, terminally ill with brain cancer. She and her daughters then had to watch her husband die at home after he stopped all his medication. That took a week. Gareth’s sister now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, and his nieces are traumatised by the experience. Gareth wants people to be more open in their conversations about death. Speaking about death and not being afraid to discuss it can only lead to better decisions for everyone. Susan’s husband, Duncan, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which we all know has no cure. Susan described Duncan as a very strong character who, after researching MND, determined straightaway that he was going to be in control of his own death. Until he had a plan in place, he was distressed and unhappy, but once he had a plan, he could start to live again. Three years after his diagnosis, Duncan took his own life at home with help from Susan. He left information for the police about how and why he had done it. Although his intention had been to do it when Susan was not at home, Susan said that, after 42 years of very happy marriage, she could not not be there for him at the end. Despite the information that Duncan left, it was six months before the Crown Prosecution Service deemed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Susan. She was interviewed for six hours under caution by the police, which, after the death of her husband, was obviously very distressing. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have something like that hanging over you when you should be grieving the loss of a loved one. Susan had the means to fight these charges and her solicitor eventually got her arrest removed from her record. What happens to someone who does not have the money to stand up to a criminal justice system that demonises people who find themselves in this invidious position? Susan also believes that because Duncan made his intentions clear, the doctor seemed reluctant to give him drugs to help him sleep, which exacerbated his problems. Ultimately, Susan takes comfort in the fact that Duncan got the death he wanted. However, it is a tragedy that his death was not within the law. We know that people falling foul of the criminal justice system is not uncommon in situations where someone ends their life, but empathy and sensitivity are required in these situations—not the heavy-handed approach we have seen too often. Tim was a carer to his friend, David, who also had motor neurone disease. Within two days of his diagnosis, David had signed up to Dignitas. It was more than two and a half years before he died, after travelling to Switzerland. There is only one end to a diagnosis of MND, and David was not willing to be trapped in his body while his brain was still functioning. By making the decision to join Dignitas, David had some peace of mind. However, even with his membership, the process was not always easy; information was not forthcoming until certain points in David’s illness, and the full picture was not available until they reached Switzerland. It would have been so much easier if David could have done it at home. At home, the only option David was given was to be sedated for three weeks while his body shut down—as Tim said, prolonging the suffering. When Tim spoke about the inevitability of David’s death, he said that doctors were willing to prolong his life to the extent where the consequences were not worth it. Pain was not really an issue for David, but the suffering that he went through—not being able to sleep due to choking; having to be fed through a tube in his stomach—was unbearable. Throughout this process, all participants have spoken of the anxiety that they faced because they or their loved ones did not have the option of assisted dying. As Jan said in her contribution, knowing that there is an option for assisted dying is an insurance policy: it may not be something you decide to do in the end, but having it there is a comfort. We have to consider the impact on the families who are left behind. Having to watch a loved one die is never easy, but prolonging the suffering can lead to trauma and PTSD for families and friends. I have already spoken on the record about my father dying. Tim said that palliative care can mitigate some of the pain, but it can never mitigate the suffering. This seems to be so true. Even the best palliative care cannot make. I am also grateful to Liz Carr for taking the time to speak to me on Friday evening. The worries that Liz and other campaigners have need to be heard, and I believe we have a duty as Members of Parliament to open up this debate and listen to all sides. There are so many debates where people are very polarised in their arguments, particularly in this House, and I feel very strongly that both sides should be heard and that we should listen to everyone. Liz talked about Daniel James, a rugby player who was paralysed from the chest down in a rugby accident. Liz is disabled and a well-known actress and campaigner. She explained that, without exception, the press coverage said that Daniel had been brave, stressing how tragic it was that this man had been cut down in the prime of his life. Liz wanted to make the point that there was another side to the story that had not been told. People with a disability are seen as something to be pitied and as people who will never live a full life. I want to make clear today that I do not believe that. There are people with disabilities who make invaluable contributions to British life, and we should listen to them and their concerns. Being disabled does not mean living a second-class life. I cannot even begin to understand how being considered in that way would make somebody feel. There are bigger problems in the health service, however, including dehumanising treatment—such as when someone waits hours for a carer to visit to take them to the toilet—and insufficient pain relief because the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has made an economic decision about someone’s worth versus the cost. That is what we faced as a family—I have experienced it. Liz also raised concerns about trust in the healthcare system. She said: “The NHS has both saved my life, and destroyed my life.” If we want to have a grown-up conversation about death, we need absolute commitment to properly funding end-of-life care and hospices. Some on the Government side will say that they are campaigning for “dying well”. They are in a position to make that happen, so I say to them: please do so. The palliative care system has been underfunded; rather than talking about dying well, please do something about that. As Liz said, it is outrageous that hospices are mainly charity funded. If we want people to be able to die well, let us fund palliative care, give people options and make everyone feel valued at the end of their life. One word that I have not yet used in my speech is “autonomy”—deliberately so, because I had it explained to me in a way that I had never previously considered. I have always been a great believer in the idea that it is my body and I will do I want with it, thank you very much, but Liz said that disabled people can embody what most people are afraid of: a lack of autonomy and a loss of dignity. That understandably frightens many disabled people. When you think society does not value you, or that it considers you a burden, you must fear that society will find a way to rid itself of that burden. I thank everyone who has spoken to me. It is amazing to see Westminster Hall packed with people who care about their death and the deaths of their loved ones, however they wish for it to end. The petition is very important to me and many others. We need a calm and clear conversation. Will the Minister find a way for the Select Committee to hold an inquiry on it, and will he take the time to meet some of the campaigners who took the time to speak to me? Their voices have to be heard, and the least we can do is hear them and make informed choices about where we go from here. Most importantly, it is for parliamentarians to debate and discuss future legislative opportunities. In conclusion, I thank everyone. I understand the strength of feeling that this issue evokes, and I look forward to listening to a meaningful discussion this afternoon. |
