argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): New clause 1, which I wish to be put to a vote, is supported by more than 100 MPs. The arguments for it are straightforward. First, it is to clarify beyond doubt, in statute, that sex-selective abortion is illegal in UK law. This new clause is not seeking to change the law on abortion, as some have said, but to confirm and clarify it. It also provides the Government with an opportunity to address the problem by bringing forward best practice regulations and guidance to support and protect women at risk New clause 1 is necessary because there is no explicit statement about gender selective abortion in UK law. The law is being interpreted in different ways because when the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, scans to determine the sex of the foetus were not available. That has led to a huge amount of confusion and mixed messages. That is despite the fact that the Government have repeatedly said that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Health Ministers have said so; the Prime Minister has said so; the Department of Health has published guidance to that effect; and the chief medical officer has written to doctors about it. Despite all of that, abortion providers and others, staggeringly, are still refusing to accept the Government’s interpretation of the law Only last week, the country’s largest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, republished its controversial guidance in a booklet entitled, "Britain’s abortion law: what it says and why". The following question is posed: is abortion for reasons of foetal sex illegal under the Abortion Act? To this, it answers, "No, the law is silent on the matter." The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said: "The law does not in terms expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions."
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): All we are trying to do is simply clarify what everyone in the House of Commons wants to be the law: we should not have abortion on the basis of gender. That is the reply to the DPP. We just want the law to be made absolutely clear.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely right. That is the purpose of new clause 1. I will come on to explain why it is so important to many of the women who are suffering as a result of the lack of clarity in the law This House must make the matter clear. If we cannot get a consistent line from abortion providers on whether or not it is illegal to abort a girl—it is usually girls but not always—for the sole reason that she is a girl, then the law is not fit for purpose. To do so constitutes a gross form of sex discrimination. Indeed it is the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. Surely no one can object to a clause that simply states that that is wrong New clause 1 will do more than that, because if it is passed, by virtue of clause 79 (2) the Government will be able to issue guidance to help address this abuse and support affected women. That is why new clause 25 is inadequate when taken alone. What it is proposing is a Department of Health assessment or review of the issue. The Department can already do that. Without new clause 1, it is inadequate, because it fails to go to the heart of the issue and to clear up the very real confusion that exists. It fails to clarify the law, as new clause 1 does, that sex election abortion is illegal in this country Let me turn now to some of the objections to new clause 1. Much of them have misrepresented its impact and some have been plain scaremongering. First, it is said that it will criminalise women. That is flatly untrue. The clause applies only to authorising doctors; it does not affect an expectant mother’s standing in law. We have also heard that it will stop abortion for disability where there is a sex-linked condition. That is also totally incorrect. I can reassure colleagues that there is nothing in this new clause to prevent a doctor from diagnosing substantial risk of serious handicap via the sex of the baby. In such cases, the ground for the abortion is the risk of the disability, not the sex of the baby. New clause 1 will not change that, and I have been careful to obtain expert legal opinion to that effect.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): Not at all. We can trust our medical practitioners to be professional in that respect. It is quite clear that the ground for the abortion in such cases would be the genetic condition and not the sex of the child.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): That is exactly the point that I am making. If the handicap, or the condition, is diagnosed via the sex of the baby, in such cases the grounds for the abortion, through that diagnosis, is the risk of serious handicap, and on that ground the abortion can be legitimately carried out.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, although I do not think that she needs assistance. Of all the arguments that have been put forward on this matter, the one that has no traction at all is the suggestion that enacting this new clause would lead to the confusion that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) fears. It plainly would not. There might be other arguments that can be advanced and of course there will be different views across the House, but that could not possibly happen if the new clause were enacted.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the hon. Lady agree with the TUC interpretation of the law, which is that it would be right in some circumstances for a doctor to approve an abortion if, for example, a woman did not want to have a girl for cultural reasons?
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I will try to do so relatively briefly in order to allow more Back-Bench contributions. New clause 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and new clause 25, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), both relate to the very important matter of addressing the abhorrent practice of sex-selective abortion The Government have been consistently clear that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal. The Department of Health repeated that in guidance issued in May 2014, and it is important to stress that all independent sector providers have agreed to comply with, and operate on the basis of, the Department’s guidance and that they must do so as part of their licensing conditions. The Care Quality Commission monitors compliance with that, including through its inspection visits.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): On the welcome guidance that was published, I understand from freedom of information requests, and from an e-mail sent on 21 January, that there was a request for joint badging of that guidance to ensure that all the stakeholders signed up to it. Why did that not happen? Why was it left only to the Department to publish it?
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to hear from my hon. Friend that ground E would not be jeopardised. The Government have access to good legal advice—[Interruption.] I trust that they have access to good legal advice, and it must be the case that the Government have a position on the matter. I am grateful to hear from my hon. Friend that that particular anxiety is completely misplaced.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jane Ellison (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a useful point to draw out about other parts of this important Bill It is for the House to decide whether it wants to place the commitment to a further review on a statutory footing by supporting new clause 25 As is the convention with such issues of conscience, as a Government we do not take a position either for or against new clauses 1 and 25. If the matter is pressed to a Division, Government Members will have a free vote. However, I hope that it has been helpful to hon. Members in forming their own opinion on these two new clauses for me to set out the Government’s actions to date in this area, the facts in relation to the gestations at which most abortions are performed, and the concerns raised by professional bodies. As I have said, it is for the House to decide whether it wants to support either of the new clauses, or indeed both or neither of them, but I reiterate that abortion of a foetus on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate that there may be policy arguments and all sorts of good arguments to make, but it is simply incorrect to argue that the new clause would have the consequences that have been claimed of preventing, for example, abortion from taking place where, because of the gender, there was a likelihood of disability. The Minister confirmed that. She was a bit hesitant about it, but she eventually did so when I intervened on her, so I repeat her assurance. My view is that this argument is completely groundless.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): It is important that we try as far as possible to develop a consensus on subjects such as this. Everyone across the House is against abortion on the grounds of gender alone. We have communicated that view, the Government have written it in guidance and we want to make it clear in statute. It is as simple as that. We do not seek to have a Trojan horse or to upgrade the status of the unborn child. On that point, one simply needs to look at section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, which refers to "child" as a legal term, so that definition is not unknown We could support new clause 25, which aims to develop further research and have a plan, but it is not an alternative to new clause 1. Yes, we should develop more understanding and evidence, but we should not ignore the main point of this debate, which is what brought together more than 50 Members from both sides of the House—whether they were pro-choice or pro-life—when they signed a letter in 2013. Some of them have now signed different new clauses and are seeking to divide one another when we should be coming together to show that we want to clear up the law We have talked about different legal experts. Why not take one, Keir Starmer, the then Director of Public Prosecutions? On 7 October 2013, he said: "The law does not…expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions" That no doubt came as a surprise to many members of the public. To put it simply, that is what new clause 1 is about—it would expressly prohibit such abortions. What does the law do? As Keir Starmer went on, rather the law "prohibits any abortion carried out without two medical practitioners having formed a view, in good faith, that the health risks of continuing with a pregnancy outweigh those of termination."
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Edward Julian Egerton Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): We have to base the law on the law. There is no mention of this in the 1967 Act. There was no possibility of mentioning it in the Act, because it was not possible to determine gender when it was passed. Keir Starmer is therefore absolutely right: the law is unclear.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): That is right. The Department issued helpful guidance that abortion on the grounds of gender alone was illegal. However, guidance is not sufficient. We do not simply rely on guidance in many areas of policy As freedom of information requests have revealed, the Government’s attempt jointly to badge all stakeholders together did not succeed, because the BMA rejected the very guidance published by the Government. It said that gender selection abortion is "normally unethical", but that the guidance "fails to reflect the…full legal situation regarding abortion and gender." The BMA therefore had a different interpretation. It also said that, separate to the issue of gender-related disability that has quite properly been raised, "in some cases doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects of having a child of a particular gender are so severe to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman as to provide legal and ethical justification for an abortion" We need greater clarity than can be given in guidance; we need to be sure that such a prohibition is clear in statute. The law as it stands is not clear. We have a duty not just to leave it to a doctor to perform a balancing act. No longer should we be silent on this issue. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 1.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Sarah James (Wollaston) (Conservative, Centre-right): We all agree that it is abhorrent to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of a belief that daughters are less valuable than sons. However, I will vote against new clause 1 for three reasons: it is unnecessary, there would be unintended consequences and we have insufficient time to debate what would be a fundamental change to an underlying principle of the Abortion Act 1967 We have heard clearly that it is already illegal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of gender alone, and rightly so. That has been clarified since many of us agreed that there was an issue. I agree that there was an issue. It was not possible to bring prosecutions until the clarification was issued by the Department of Health and the chief medical officer The updated data on this issue, which examines not only ethnicity but birth order, shows that there is no evidence of a systematic practice of gender-based abortion in this country. It happens in other parts of the world, where it is having a serious distorting effect on societies and on the status of women, but there is no systematic practice here, although I have no doubt that there are individual cases New clause 1 would have unintended consequences. At present, women may have the confidence to disclose to a doctor in the confidence of a consulting room that they feel under pressure. If we brought in the new clause, women might feel that they may be criminalised. That would do more harm than good and bring about the exact reverse of the intended consequence of the new clause. We also risk stigmatising communities through the implication that this is a widespread practice, which it is not in the UK. We have to be clear about that New clause 1 uses the very emotive term, "the unborn child". That would change the meaning within the Abortion Act. We have to be very careful about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) mentioned that the word "child" appears in the Abortion Act. I accept that, but we must look at the context in which the word is mentioned. It is mentioned in the grounds for terminating a pregnancy when there is a grave risk that a child may suffer a serious abnormality. In other words, it does not confer personhood on the foetus in the way that this change would. It may be the view of the House that that needs to change, but let us come back and debate this incredibly serious ethical point with the time it deserves, not shoehorn it on to the tail end of a new clause with which it is difficult to disagree—as I said earlier, we are all agreed that termination on the grounds that a daughter is somehow of less value than a son is totally abhorrent I urge hon. Members please to come back to this issue and give it the time it deserves. Let us debate it on its ethical merits, not try to pretend that we are talking about something else. We are all agreed on the fundamental premise, so let us give it the time it deserves and reject new clause 1 tonight.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Immigration
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Immigration That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.—(Mr Foster.) Question agreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), British Nationality That the draft British Nationality (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.—(Mr Foster.) Question agreed to.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Immigration
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Immigration That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved That the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Mr Foster.) Question agreed to.
Innovation Fund for Young People — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I set up the £30 million innovation fund four years ago to test cutting-edge projects for helping disadvantaged young people: some of those most at risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—or falling in with gangs. Using social impact bonds, these projects are now proving they can deliver a return on the investment; 16,600 positive educational and employment outcomes have been achieved, each one an improvement in a young person’s prospects.
Mental Health (Employment Opportunities) — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions the Disability Confident campaign. I have invited Members from both sides of the House to talk about Disability Confident at an event in the House on Wednesday. Specifically on mental health, I had the privilege last Thursday to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and to meet with the work coaches in the jobcentre and with those who have been on some of our pilot programmes to hear about the success we have had in encouraging people with a mental health problem to get back into work, or to avoid having one in the first place.
Mental Health (Employment Opportunities) — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Mark James Harper (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is right. One thing we are doing through our Disability Confident campaign is ensuring that employers are aware not only of those with physical disabilities but of those with mental health problems. There was, for a period, a statutory bar on Members of Parliament serving in this House in this respect. When I was in Opposition I challenged the then Justice Secretary on the matter, and this Government have now delivered change to ensure that we set a good example. We now say that if someone has a mental health problem, they are just as capable as anyone else to work both as a Member of Parliament and as staff in the House.
New Enterprise Allowance — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What recent assessment he has made of take-up of the new enterprise allowance (a) nationally and (b) in the Dudley metropolitan borough council area.
Esther Louise McVey (Conservative, Centre-right): The new enterprise allowance supports jobseekers who want to set up their own business through mentoring and a weekly allowance. Through the scheme over 60,000 businesses have been started nationally, including 640 within the Dudley metropolitan area.
New Enterprise Allowance — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What recent assessment he has made of take-up of the new enterprise allowance (a) nationally and (b) in the Dudley metropolitan borough council area.
Margot Cathleen James (Conservative, Centre-right): The new enterprise allowance is one of the many ways that the Government are supporting people into self-employment and running their own businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this support has been essential to the thriving business environment which has seen over 2,000 new businesses start up in my constituency, Stourbridge, since 2010?
New Enterprise Allowance — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What recent assessment he has made of take-up of the new enterprise allowance (a) nationally and (b) in the Dudley metropolitan borough council area.
Esther Louise McVey (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right. When any new business sets up, it needs support, mentoring and access to finance, all of which we are providing. With her background, she knows exactly how to set up a business; she set up her own and won awards for it, and her dad set up his own business in the 1930s which went on to be an incredibly successful manufacturing company. That is what we need to do—support people, provide access to finance and mentoring, and ensure that they have a good business plan. I thank my hon. Friend for that question.
Access to Benefits — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Immigration
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement in November that a future Conservative Government will have the toughest regime in Europe on limiting migrants’ access to our benefits system. Will the Secretary of State outline for the House the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that migrants come here to work and contribute, and what he has done to deter people from benefit tourism?
Access to Benefits — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Exactly what I have mentioned. The mess that we were left by the last Government left little or no restrictions on anybody coming in, so the UK became a draw for people who wanted to claim benefits and be out of work, because it was a better option. We are tightening that up. We have stopped a number of things, such as housing benefit, and have shortened the time on jobseeker’s allowance. Tax credits are moving into line with that as well. As I said, when we are re-elected at the next election as a Conservative Government, we will tighten it up even more.
Unemployment — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): In May 2010, the claimant count in my constituency was 1,702. This month, it is 684. In a European context, will my right hon. Friend help me? Is that fall in unemployment in my constituency due to the increased vibrancy of a diversified rural economy such as mine, or the absence of a plan long terme économique elsewhere?