argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Personal Independence Payments: Supreme Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Justin Paul Tomlinson (Conservative, Centre-right): We have made a real commitment, and we work closely with stakeholders representing a huge variety of disability and health conditions, empowering them to challenge, to make suggestions, and to work with our teams to help shape the training guidance. That is why an increasing amount of money is being spent each year on supporting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. As I said, at £55 billion a year, spending is up £10 billion since we came to office. That is a record high, and it will continue to increase as we work, listen and engage with the people who have frontline experience, which the Government have committed to do.
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I know I will disappoint the hon. Lady, and I know she has been a passionate campaigner on these issues for many years, with the welfare of women at her heart. I answer this question with great respect for her desire, but it remains the case that the Government are not minded to repeal the provisions of the 1861 Act in England and Wales, recognising that we have an Abortion Act that provides for access to abortion services From the perspective of the safety of women accessing abortion services, the issues raised by the hon. Lady do concern me. It is not good for the welfare of women that pills are being accessed online. I also observe that the Abortion Act is more than 50 years old and was the product of a very different time. Abortions were then entirely surgical, and the medical abortions to which we now have access are clearly far safer This is very much a personal view, and I am not speaking for the Government in advancing this view, but I think that making provision for early abortion and for recognising medical abortion in law will get us much further. We need to make sure we have a safe regime that enables women to access abortion services as safely as possible.
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I supported decriminalisation, I supported the regularising of the abortion law in Northern Ireland last week, and on Friday I shall visit my local BPAS clinic. But changing the law is only part of it. Last year, I was out with an ambulance crew and we were called out to a woman who had been at an abortion clinic and taken the pills. She was bleeding heavily and had been taken very ill, and there was no out-of-hours service—this was on a Friday evening. Does the Minister agree, particularly in respect of the availability of do-it-yourself pills on the internet, that it is absolutely essential that, at a very difficult time for a woman who has taken that decision, the ongoing support is there 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Lady for the characteristically constructive spirit in which she has engaged with this issue. The nub of the point she makes is that decriminalisation must not be met with deregulation. Whatever we do, we must make sure that in repealing those sections of the 1861 Act—if that is what Parliament chooses to do—the regime that replaces it must not only guarantee the rights of women to take decisions for themselves but protect them and keep them safe. That is my priority in addressing this issue.
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Other
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is aware—isn’t she?—that any proposal for appeal will be resisted as passionately in the country and on the Government Back Benches as it has just been advocated by those on the Opposition Benches?
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): As with any consultation, "others" would include all members of the public, and everyone here is a representative of members of the public. There are a number of ways that we can get to the outcome of legislation fit for the 21st century. It is the Government’s position that the simple repeal of those two aspects of the 1861 Act is not sufficient to guarantee safe legislation for women in this country. We have an Abortion Act that empowers women to take decisions themselves. Again, I come back to the fact that this is an issue of conscience. As Minister, I will implement the law as decided by Parliament.
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a difficult question to answer given that the matter is now completely devolved. In respect of England and Wales, I think that the most effective method would be to revisit the Abortion Act, which is itself an amendment to the Offences Against the Person Act providing an exemption for women making that choice in those circumstances. My personal view—the Government do not have a view on such matters of conscience—is that, after 50 years, the Abortion Act does not reflect medical practice today, and therefore restricts the choices of women and their ability to exercise those choices in the safest way.
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Immigration
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): We need to look at exactly what the Offences Against the Person Act says, which is not in the context of a medical procedure. That is why we have the Abortion Act, which provides for a specific exemption by treating abortion as a medical procedure. The Offences Against the Person Act is in effect about foeticide; the Abortion Act amends that to decriminalise women seeking an abortion. That is the difference. If we make it about the Offences Against the Person Act, we are missing the point about England and Wales BILLS PRESENTED Low Carbon Domestic Heating Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir David Amess, supported by Ian Austin, Mr Adrian Bailey, Sir Graham Brady, Tom Brake, Maria Caulfield, Mr Roger Godsiff, Zac Goldsmith, John Grogan, Tim Loughton, Sarah Newton and Alex Sobel, presented a Bill to make provision about low carbon domestic heating systems Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 427). Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 428).
Decriminalisation of Abortion — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Suggestive of a busy "tomorrow"—we shall await the development of events. Meanwhile, we have an item of considerable parliamentary excitement, namely the ten-minute rule motion, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has been patiently waiting to move.
Nationality — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Immigration
Caroline Fiona Ellen Nokes (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 2 May, be approved In this day and age, I think we can all agree that the law should not discriminate against people simply because their parents were not married when they were born, and that we should not discriminate against people just because it was their mother who was British, not their father. The draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019 is designed to remove discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 for those applying for British citizenship under specific routes introduced to address historical discrimination against those whose parents were not married, or against those whose mother was British, as opposed to their father. The draft order was first laid in Parliament in March 2018 Once the law has been changed, those who seek to register as British citizens and who were born to an unmarried British father before July 2006, or to a British mother before 1983, will no longer need to demonstrate that they are of good character where it would be discriminatory to require them to do so. In two separate cases, the courts declared the good character requirement to be unlawful and made a declaration of incompatibility with the European convention on human rights. This legislation will correct incompatibilities identified by the domestic courts by removing the good character requirement for those applying for British citizenship via certain routes on the basis of historical discrimination. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny of the order and its careful consideration of this hugely complex and sensitive issue The remedial order process to correct incompatibilities in primary legislation with the European convention on human rights is rarely used. It is therefore right that each order is scrutinised carefully to ensure compliance with the procedure laid down in the Human Rights Act 1998, and to ensure that the incompatibilities found by the courts are addressed The Government welcome the Committee’s recommendation that Parliament approve the order. It remains our position that some of the issues raised by the Committee go beyond the incompatibility rulings and are therefore outwith the scope of the order. I commend this order to the House.
Nationality — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Immigration
Caroline Fiona Ellen Nokes (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for the considered debate today and the interest that Opposition Members have shown in this remedial order As I said earlier, the scope of the remedial order is to make changes to nationality legislation and it is therefore narrow. It is limited to addressing the specific incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts. The Government will monitor any remaining potentially unlawful discriminatory aspects of nationality legislation, a point picked up on by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and will consult as appropriate if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary The Government are committed to ensuring that those individuals affected by the order do not face further discrimination. In its first report on the remedial order, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that those who had citizenship applications previously refused, because of the discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981, which this order seeks to remedy, should not have to pay the application fee for a repeat application. I am pleased to say that I have written to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Committee, confirming that I plan to amend the fees regulation at the next opportunity to waive the application fee for this particular cohort Turning to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), he commented on children having to meet the good character test. This is a requirement for British citizenship as set out in the 1981 Act. It applies to those seeking to register as British who are aged 10 years and over at the time of application. That is because 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Children as young as 10 can and do commit very serious acts of criminality, sad though that is and undoubtedly tragic for their victims. It cannot be right that such offences are disregarded when assessing a child’s suitability for citizenship.
Nationality — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Immigration
Caroline Fiona Ellen Nokes (Conservative, Centre-right): I was just moving on to that particular point. The Government do not believe that the good character requirement for children is at odds with the statutory obligation in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, but I want to make very clear that having a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean an application for citizenship is automatically refused, particularly in the case of minor offences attracting an out-of-court disposal, for example, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a youth caution. Each case is considered on its individual merits and guidance for caseworkers makes it clear where discretion can be exercised On British overseas territories, we are very proud of our heritage in Britain and this pride extends to many people around the world who identify as British. The JCHR expressed concerns that the discriminatory provisions that this remedial order seeks to remedy will still apply to British overseas territories citizens. Regrettably, this is true. When changes to nationality legislation were made, they were introduced at a very late stage in the parliamentary process and there was no time to consult fully with the territories about introducing similar provisions for British overseas territories citizens’ status. It would not have been right to introduce legislation that would affect the territories, and potentially the status of those living there, without consultation. We recognise the difficulties that the British Nationality Act still presents for some British overseas territories citizens, who may wish to pass on their citizenship to their children and are considering how best to address those concerns, taking into account the opportunities for doing so. I commend the order to the House Question put and agreed to.
Body Image and Mental Health — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman raises an issue close to my heart. When we talk about so-called reality TV programmes, it is as if the people participating in them are normal people. The reality, however, is that they are not normal people. They are semi-professional celebrities who have often undergone enhancements to become attractive to be chosen to go on these television programmes. The whole thing starts to develop insidiously in a culture, making people think that they should aspire to look like that and that it is normal. Everyone is chasing a lifestyle that is frankly not attainable We have all enjoyed watching such programmes. I often say that we have become a nation of voyeurs, but perhaps we all need to remind society that there is no quick route to fame, fortune and success—that comes as a result of hard work—and that spending a bit of money on a nip and tuck and a lip filler will not be the route to earning a lot of money. We all need to start to address that, because we have allowed magazines and our media to develop this image. We have been complicit in it happening, because we have enjoyed that entertainment, but we are reaching a position where our society is extremely unhealthy The problem has been made particularly acute by the growth of social and digital media, which have increased exposure to unrealistic and unattainable images of beauty. As we all know, when we are browsing on our iPad we can look at one thing and straight away be bombarded with sites that squirrel us down a route where we are exposed to more and more such content. People who are looking at unrealistic body images will see ever more images that they aspire to. There is another insidious thing: a friend of mine was speaking to me only last night and said that she was looking at cosmetic procedures when, all of a sudden, an advert popped on to her screen encouraging her to spend a few thousand pounds so that she could learn to administer lip fillers herself. She thought how horrendous it is that our social media does that.
Body Image and Mental Health — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point—I have heard of that campaign. It is disturbing that so many people alter their images. None of us is perfect—God help us if we all were—but for people to think that they need to alter their appearance because they are unhappy with it, and for that to become normalised, is quite a sinister development in society. At the risk of being trite, perhaps we should be telling everyone to learn to love themselves.
Body Image and Mental Health — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with that. Through the new personal education that will be rolled out next year, we will have the ability to address that issue. I would just say that we need to be careful about this and to give some scrutiny to what the content of that might be. We have to really make sure that people respect the fact that we are all different and we all come in odd shapes and sizes, but everyone is beautiful. That is a really important message to convey. It will be incredibly challenging to get that content right, and we do need to bring some scrutiny to that Body image is clearly a strong contributory factor in many cases of mental ill health. I am pleased that we are starting to tackle some of these issues, but there is a long way to go. We have reached a stage at which the herd has gone so far down the road that the idealised view that everyone is a size zero model whose perfectly coiffed, long, naturally blonde or brunette hair has no shades of grey and no curls has taken hold. It will take a long time to turn that juggernaut around, but in the interests of a healthy society we all need to get a grip.
Body Image and Mental Health — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I shall not detain the House for too long, because I think it has heard enough from me for one day. I thank Members for their generous comments, even if they might be career-limiting In this debate, however, there is consensus across the House. We all fully recognise the problems that we face and the need for decisive action to tackle them. I will certainly continue to work with all Members to do exactly that, because this is too important and—I make this observation—the people out there expect us to work together more often than not. Such subjects should not be a political football, and it is too important to ensure that we are tackling harms The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) made the observation that the debate might not be as well attended as previous ones, but to be fair we have had many such debates in this space. Many Members, even if not present this afternoon, clearly have a keen interest. I am utterly at one with her when she expressed her concern about a context in which we have normalised unrealistic body image. Such images have become so normalised that it will take a lot of effort to address it. She also referred to the incident of the lady who, sadly, died as a result of accessing a Brazilian butt lift from a surgeon in Turkey. Unfortunately, she is not the only such person from this country. It is the most dangerous cosmetic procedure that can be undertaken and, as a consequence, is banned in this country. None the less, despite the ban, people are still bombarded with images and with adverts for where they can seek the procedure. That brings home the fact that we need to do much more to make people aware of the risks Many Members referred to the influence of advertising, and I am afraid that those organisations that profit from hosting advertising ought to have a duty of care and ensure that the material they carry does not expose people to harm. I therefore welcome the engagement that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is undertaking with Facebook on exactly that. It is not good enough for social media providers to retreat to the defence of, "Well, we are a liberated platform, regulated by our users." Where they become a vehicle for things that will cause harm, those social media providers have a duty of care to the people who use their platforms. We must all continue to challenge them on that issue We have had lots of references to "Love Island". Collectively, perhaps we ought to challenge use of the term "reality TV", because it is not reality TV; it is fantasy TV. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] So that might be the outcome of today’s debate—let us all talk about fantasy TV from now on, because such programmes promote lifestyles that are not normal or achievable. Let us do that.
Stonecastle Farm Quarry — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a great pleasure to be here, with you in the Chair once again, Madam Deputy Speaker The petition of residents of Tonbridge and Malling declares that Stonecastle Farm Quarry near Golden Green is an unsuitable location for further quarrying, and that Kent County Council and the Planning Inspectorate should not allocate site M13 for sharp sand and gravel extraction in the Kent minerals and waste local plan I am particularly grateful to all the residents in Golden Green and surrounding villages, including some of those present in the Public Gallery today—the advancement of public business may mean that some of them have not made it—for their work in collecting signatures and responding to the consultations that have already taken place. Including online signatures, over 1,000 people have now indicated their opposition to the allocation Stonecastle Farm Quarry lies on the boundary of Tonbridge and Malling with Tunbridge Wells. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) endorses my comments today, and perhaps he will be able to speak more freely about them tomorrow. Residents in Tudeley and surrounding areas, including the Save Capel campaign group, have been actively campaigning against expansion here, and against other proposed developments in the area. I hope the House will recognise their efforts The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Kent County Council and the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider the allocation of a site for quarrying in Golden Green Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of Residents of Tonbridge and Malling, Declares that Stonecastle Farm Quarry is an unsuitable location for further quarrying and Kent County Council and the Planning Inspectorate should not allocate site M13 for Sharp Sand and Gravel extraction in the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Kent County Council and the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider the allocation of a site for quarrying in Golden Green. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002500]
Lower Limb Wound Care — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Other
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): It has sometimes been said that MPs in this House speak about things they do not know about, and sometimes MPs speak about things about which they have only a little experience, but I do not think I have ever had the honour of responding to a debate where a Member has spoken with so much current, relevant experience. I must congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—
Lower Limb Wound Care — House of Commons, 2019-07-23
Topic: Other
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is always full of brilliant ideas and we will only move forward as a nation if we share best practice and the expertise gained from different parts of our country. So I would be very keen to speak to his colleagues at the Northern Ireland Assembly and see if we can gain any learning from that.