argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): Setting aside the fact that I question whether what is left of the Bill is necessary, if the database is to be created, it is important that we get its design right. The Association of Medical Research Charities has expressed concern that the database might adversely impact patients and medical research. For such a database to be effective, it will need to be appropriately regulated and quality controlled. I believe that it can command the confidence of the medical profession only if it is developed in consultation with it. With that in mind, amendments 8 and 9 deal with the bodies that the Secretary of State must consult and get approval from before introducing regulations establishing a database of innovative treatments As the Bill stands—this is set out in clause 2(1)—to make those regulations the Secretary of State need only consult the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Restricting the statutory consultees to only one organisation seems highly restrictive and is inconsistent with the Bill’s explanatory notes, which state: "The detailed design of the database would be consulted upon with professional bodies and organisations." Amendments 8 and 9 would make the legislation clearer on which bodies should be consulted I note that the Minister was unable to support similar amendments tabled in Committee because he felt that the list was "not exhaustive". Indeed, he went on to say: "Although it represents a helpful list of consultees, such a provision would need to include many more organisations. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, restricting the process would not be helpful" The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) then said: "I know from my consultation on the Bill with stakeholders that we would need longer lists than those in the amendments."––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22-23.] With those constructive comments in mind, I have included in the list a provision allowing the Secretary of State to consult "any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult." I know that there were concerns that the list of specified organisations could become out of date. However, given that these regulation-making powers would likely be used only once—to create the database—I do not believe that concern is wholly justified. Indeed, if the Minister, or any hon. Member, believes that an inappropriate organisation is on the list set out in my amendments, I would be keen to know which organisation they feel should not have a say in the creation of the database I hope that these important amendments will address the concerns raised in Committee and that hon. Members will now be able to support them, because they will ensure that we get the design of the database right.
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened carefully to the debate on this group of amendments. Although I know that the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) have concerns about creating excessive bureaucracy, I think those concerns are somewhat overstated. The Bill already requires consultation before regulations are made. I am seeking to ensure that the appropriate organisations are able to have their input into the process. However, in the spirit of cross-party working for which the Minister has developed a fondness this morning, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment 8 and not to press amendment 9 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 Responsible Innovation Amendment made: 2, page 2, line 26, leave out clause 3 —(Chris Heaton-Harris.) Clause 4 Effect on Existing Law Amendment made: 3, page 3, line 19, leave out clause 4 —(Chris Heaton-Harris.) Clause 5 Interpretation Amendments made: 4, page 3, line 40, leave out "this Act" and insert "section 2" Amendment 12, page 3, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) Amendment 13, page 3, line 44, at end insert— ‘(1A) For the purposes of section 2(2), the kinds of medical treatment that may be innovative medical treatments include (amongst other things)— (a) the off-label use of an authorised medicinal product, and (b) the use of a medicinal product in respect of which no marketing authorisation is in force (1B) In subsection (1A)(a), the reference to the off-label use of an authorised medicinal product is a reference to the use of the product— (a) for a purpose other than one for which its use is specified, (b) in relation to a person who is not within a description of persons for whom its use is specified, or (c) in any other way in which its use is not specified (1C) In this section— (a) "authorised medicinal product" means a medicinal product in respect of which a marketing authorisation is in force; (b) "marketing authorisation" and "medicinal product" have the same meanings as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916); (c) "specified", in relation to a medicinal product, means specified in its marketing authorisation."’—(Chris Heaton-Harris.) Amendment 15, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ‘( ) References in section 2 to medical treatment include references to treatment carried out for the purposes of medical research (but nothing in section 2 is to be read as affecting the regulation of medical research)."—(George Freeman.) This amendment makes it clear that the database for which clause 2 provides may contain information about treatments carried out for the purposes of medical research (including, for example, in the context of a clinical trial).
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): I echo what the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has said about the cross-party work, thanks to which the Bill is now in its current state. I again put on the record my thanks to him for his flexibility, and to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for her impassioned contribution I am delighted that amendments 10 and 13 have been agreed to, because it is extremely important to include off-label drugs in the Bill. I am very pleased by the Minister’s positive response to those amendments. I want, if I may, to make one request of the Minister. I did not press my new clause 5, on the accessibility of the licensing process. Will he write to me specifically about that? I would be extremely grateful for some clarification about precisely what the measure will be. Will he, in his closing remarks, confirm that he will do so I want to put on the record my thanks to the charity Breast Cancer Now, and particularly to Jenny Goodare of that charity, who has done a great deal of the facilitating work. I also thank my parliamentary assistant, Briony Robinson. Her father, who is in fact an oncologist, has also made a great contribution to all the work on the Bill Ultimately, the work that has been done, especially during the winter—I made the point earlier that no fewer than eight political parties were represented by those who signed new clause 1—demonstrates the very broad swathe of opinion both in the House and beyond. Whatever side of the House we sit on, we all come into politics to try to make a difference. I sincerely hope that what we have done today will make a significant difference I look forward to holding the Minister to the promises he has made. I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and I will continue to be rigorous in ensuring that that is the case. I just hope that the Minister will be ambitious in the measures he has said he will bring forward.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Defense
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): Again, I urge Government Members not to be so complacent. The hon. Gentleman may have seen that there was a fire in north London, around Euston, in the last couple of weeks where the London fire brigade missed its response target and, sadly, there was a fatality. I would not be so complacent if I were him, because fire services up and down the country are missing their recommended response times. If he believes that the cuts to London’s fire brigade and to fire and rescue services around the country can carry on in the way that his party proposes, I think he is putting public safety at serious risk The Government’s answer to the funding challenges is to have greater collaboration and greater use of volunteers. Neither is wrong in principle; the question is how they will be implemented. There are risks inherent in both policies if they are done in the wrong way. Together, they do not add up to a convincing solution for the future of emergency services. Patching two leaky buckets together does not make one that works. As the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, Vera Baird, said today, the Bill looks suspiciously like a plan for "policing on the cheap".
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Defense
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): I say to all Government Members that an increased reliance on volunteers is no way to backfill cuts to core provision. Volunteers can add value—they can extend the reach of emergency services—but they are no substitute when filling the gaps left by cuts to front-line services that potentially leave the public at risk. The hon. Gentleman might be happy with a part-time police force or a part-time fire service, but I can tell him that most of my constituents would argue that that is not acceptable and that we need sufficient full-time resources on the front line to keep people safe.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that someone having a heart attack is in crisis and in a life-threatening situation, and that, likewise, someone who is in severe mental torture is experiencing a crisis and in a potentially life-threatening situation as well? Why does he think the two should be treated differently?
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and for his campaigning on these issues over many years. I am listening to his speech carefully. Does he agree with the point that I made that £15 million is not enough, as there is a huge shortage of crisis beds across the country? Does he think that there may be risks in enacting these proposals before major investment is put into mental health crisis services?
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister, and I say to him that he should carry on cherry-picking if that results in changes that find favour with both sides of the House On mental health, the Bill will ban the use of police cells as places of safety for under-18s, and the Committee has never believed that they are the right place for such people. I acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has also campaigned on these issues over a number of years. He is one of those who have always said that people with such illnesses should be in police cells only in exceptional cases. That applies, of course, to children, but also to adults The Committee likes the idea of police officers consulting members of the medical profession before removing a person to a place of safety, and we think it is right that there should be a maximum period of detention.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Lady not recognise that many of those savings have already been made through collaboration inside councils or with the NHS? Where does she think the extra money will come from? It will have to come from the local council.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I broadly welcome this Bill, and I will touch first on its proposals for mental health services and then on some broader issues, including those raised by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). Credit must go to the Government for addressing police interaction with those who suffer from mental health conditions. Is this issue the fault of the police? No, it is not. In many cases, they are picking up the failure of the rest of society, but they have specific powers that the Bill proposes to change with regard to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 Sections 135 and 136 are unique because they give the police powers to remove the liberty of somebody who has not committed an offence or been suspected of doing so. Section 135 is used if someone is suspected of a mental disorder that could lead to them becoming a danger to themselves, not being kept under control, or being unable to care for themselves. A magistrate can authorise a warrant for police officers, with a doctor or another mental health care professional, to carry out an assessment and enter someone’s property, and to evaluate them and section them for up to 72 hours Section 136 refers to people in a public place and states that a person who is "suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control" can be taken to a "place of safety" if it is felt that they or others need to be protected. There are clear reasons for such provisions, but I think they have been made worse by the non-joined up approach to dealing with people who have mental health issues. Is that the fault of the police? No, it is not. The steps taken in the Bill will help, but will they solve the problems? No they will not, because until we hard-wire mental wellbeing and mental health into public policy, these problems will continue to exist Under the 1983 Act, a "place of safety" includes a hospital, a police station, an independent hospital, a care home, or any other suitable place. Clauses 59(2) and 60 move away from the practice of taking people to police stations. For example, clause 59 will allow someone to be kept at home, although I understand from talking to mental health professionals that that already happens in some cases, which I welcome. Not using the default position of taking someone to a police cell must be welcomed. Clause 60 states that a suitable place of safety could be someone’s house or flat, or another place that a responsible management deems suitable. I have some problems with that because it puts the onus on the police to decide what is a safe place, and I do not think that is fair on the police officers in attendance.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Commons, 2016-03-07
Topic: Health
Kevan David Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the misunderstanding. I thought he told the House he would oppose the Bill on Report, which I would not, but I look forward to his amendments because there are clear ways that the Bill could be improved and strengthened, as he said In closing, I broadly welcome the Bill. I hope that in Committee we can address the issues around mental health so that the Bill can do what the Government want it to do, which is to improve the situation. I suggest that they work with the charities sector and others who have raised some of the concerns that I have mentioned tonight. I hope that we can get to where the Government want to go and avoid the situation of people with a mental illness ending up in police cells. It could also take the burden from front-line police officers, who, although they try hard, are not qualified to deal with such situations.
Terror Financing — House of Commons, 2016-01-12
Topic: Defense
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), an estimate by Associated Press at the end of October 2015 was that between 40,000 and 50,000 barrels of oil a day were being produced to finance Daesh in Iraq and Syria to the tune of $40 million a month. In the light of the agreement on terrorist financing that was reached in December, which the Minister mentioned, and the coalition military action, what is his current estimate of the finances available to Daesh?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): There is so much that could be said about this dispute that it is hard to know where to begin, so let me ask the Minister four simple questions First, the Health Secretary says that his door is open to further talks with the BMA. What does that mean? Specifically, can the Minister envisage a new contract where the definition of plain time working at weekends applies only to a Saturday morning Secondly, if a negotiated solution to a new junior doctor contract cannot be found, will the Minister today rule out imposing one? Does he not see how harmful imposition would be to patients, given its impact on staff morale, the risk of a protracted period of industrial action and the implications for future recruitment and retention Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that the pay protection offered to one in four junior doctors means that those doing the equivalent jobs in the future will be worse off? Should we not value the junior doctors of tomorrow as much as we value those of today Fourthly, and finally, throughout the dispute Ministers have repeatedly conflated the need to reform the junior doctor contract with their manifesto commitment to a seven-day NHS. Can the Minister name a single chief executive who has told him that the junior doctor contract is the barrier to providing high quality care 24/7? If junior doctors are the staff group who have to change their working patterns least to deliver this, which other groups of NHS staff will need to have the definition of unsocial hours changed in their contracts during this Parliament In the past year, the Health Secretary has implied that doctors do not work weekends, insinuated that juniors are somehow to blame for deaths among patients admitted on Saturdays and Sundays, and insulted professionals’ intelligence by telling them they have been misled by the BMA. If he was here, I would ask him whether he regrets the way he has handled this dispute, but he has not even got the nerve to turn up No one is saying the existing junior doctors’ contract is perfect, but if you speak to anyone in the NHS, they will tell you that this whole episode has been an exercise in using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is time now for the Government to do what is right for patients, for staff and for the NHS.
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister aware that it takes two sides to call a strike? It cannot happen just because one side of the argument wants a strike. The Secretary of State has been looking for a fight with the doctors ever since he got the job. Does he realise that when I came here 45 years ago, I was getting time and a half for all-day Saturday, and double time, like other miners, for Sunday? Every time the doctors are replaced by agency nurses it costs the Government and the taxpayer a small fortune. Get the matter settled, and be decent for a change.
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Is it not at the very least odd that the Secretary of State yet again chooses to stay away and not come before the House to answer questions on this very important subject? As a former Health Minister, I know how difficult the BMA can be, but this would seem to indicate to me that it is the Secretary of State who has become the main obstacle to a sensible solution to this crisis.
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Angela Rayner (Labour, Centre-left): I find the Minister’s language and tone in regard to the BMA and the junior doctors unfortunate. He speaks as though junior doctors do not care and do not want to help their patients, and I find that regrettable. In my time as a Unison official, when I used to represent public sector workers in health care, the BMA was hardly known for its militancy within that organisation, and the Minister needs to reflect on that. Does he really think that this whole problem is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) denied earlier, all the blame of the BMA and doctors? Doctors care about their patients; that is why they are in this position. Does the Minister not accept any responsibility for the impact?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Julie Elizabeth Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health accused the BMA of misleading junior doctors. Today, the Minister comes to the House and accuses the BMA of lying. Is he really asking us to believe that some of the most intelligent people in the country—junior doctors—cannot see for themselves what the Government are proposing? Does he not feel that the continued abuse directed at the junior doctors’ representatives is hindering any possibility of a settlement to this dispute and that that is damaging to patients?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Margaret Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): The shadow Health Secretary asked the Minister if he could list the hospitals in which there were currently not enough junior doctors working at weekends. He could not answer that question, so I will give the Minister another chance. Will he name them for us now?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister will know, Wexham hospital in Slough has enormously improved the care that it gives to its patients. It has done that with the same staff, but with a leadership which says to the people who work there that it has confidence in them and shares their values. The Minister is saying that he is the only person who cares about patient safety, and that doctors do not. What does that do for morale and for doctors’ ability to improve the quality of care for patients?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has been keen to establish what he sees as the preferential terms and conditions that junior doctors enjoy, yet Sir David Dalton has said in an interview with the Health Service Journal: "My assessment is that the staff group that will have to contribute the least above that which they are providing at the moment would be our doctors in training. Our messaging on this has got muddled" Does the Minister agree?
Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations — House of Commons, 2016-02-08
Topic: Health
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): Hull royal infirmary is under a black alert, which means that local people have been told not to attend the hospital unless it is a matter of life and death. Will the Minister tell me how the insults the Secretary of State has been throwing around over the weekend, and those that he himself has made today about hard-working and dedicated junior doctors, will help people in Hull, who need a functioning NHS? How will those insults improve the morale of those doctors?