argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-01-15
Topic: Health
Norman Warner (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have given my name, which has been moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I do so as a former Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals Minister who has stayed in touch with this sector since my time as a Minister The UK life sciences ecosystem has thrived, with an EU pharmaceuticals regulator based in this country and a strong medicines research base working closely with other European researchers. Over the years a strong pan-European research collaboration has grown up, which has benefited UK jobs and NHS patients. Every month, 45 million packs of medicines move from the UK to the EU and 37 million packs come the other way. The pharmaceuticals sector invests more in R&D than any other—20% of all UK business R&D. This is an industry with an annual turnover of £60 billion and exports of £30 billion. It employs 63,000 people, of whom 24,000 are working in high-paid jobs in R&D I say this because all of this is now at risk of lasting damage, particularly if there is not enough time to agree a well thought out deal during the transition period. There is now the prospect of a very clunky regulatory system, with companies having to deal with two regulators—the EMEA and the MHRA—if they want market authorisations in both the EU and the UK. The Government are saying that they want the UK market authorisations to be obtained first, but the EU is the bigger market and some companies think that they may end up with shorter IP protection in the larger market if they do what the Government ask. A dual regulatory system is likely to mean higher costs, driving up NHS prices and damaging patient access to new drugs. It will mean fewer joint research projects benefiting from EU funds, and UK-based companies are less likely to find the UK Government replacing the lost R&D funds from the EU. Over time, we may well see fewer clinical trials being done in the UK That is why this amendment is important. It offers the possibility of repairing some of the damage done by Brexit to UK life sciences and UK-based pharmaceuticals and biotech companies. We need to do our utmost to restore some basis for extensive collaboration and research work between us and the EU in the life sciences, and we need to do the best we can to make the regulatory processes as smooth as possible if we want people to continue to do pharmaceuticals research in this country. The Government have been slow to appreciate the damage they have been doing over the last three years to this British success story. Passing this amendment would start to repair some of the damage.
NHS: Targets — House of Lords, 2020-02-06
Topic: Health
Susan Lilian Primrose Cunliffe-Lister (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for this debate, which is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more important than the safety of patients. It is thanks to the press and relatives that some of the neglect and horrifying bullying of patients in some hospitals has been highlighted over the years. I hope that the Government agree with me that we need a transparent and open way of reporting concerns. Members of staff, friends and relatives should not be punished and penalised for doing this; perhaps we need another word to replace "whistleblowing" It is of great concern that some ambulances have not been able to meet their targets. It is not acceptable that patients have to wait for hours on trollies in corridors. This illustrates the pressure on beds and staff. Recently, a member of my household was admitted to Harrogate District Hospital. One night, a nurse came to him in tears, saying she had 12 patients to look after. She could not give them enough of the care they needed. Well-trained nurses should be a priority if patient safety is to be safeguarded. In Birmingham, some cancer patients having treatment, such as radiotherapy, for their conditions, and who have to travel many miles, can stay free and look after themselves in a hostel—part of the hospital—during the week while having treatment. This alleviates them of the stress and exhaustion of travelling. I hope that this excellent plan can be extended across the country I belong to several all-party parliamentary health groups. When taking evidence, there is one overriding similarity: late diagnosis. Many people are told to go home and take paracetamol. This can happen several times. In the end, it can turn out that they have a serious long-term condition. What can the Government do to improve this dangerous problem I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Many of our members who are patients of the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital cannot get appointments or new patients cannot be admitted because non-spinal patients are being placed in the allocated spinal beds. This illustrates the pressure on beds in a busy hospital. It also means that patients with life-threatening injuries, resulting in paralysis, are treated in intensive care beds without specially trained spinal nurses in general hospitals—blocking these beds while waiting for a transfer to a spinal unit I end by paying tribute to Brian Gardner, who was a spinal injuries surgeon at Stoke Mandeville. He was an outstanding doctor and always had time for patients and advised GPs on their needs. He died of cancer a few weeks ago. We need more doctors like Brian. He was one of the SIA’s advisers and is missed by very many people. He was an excellent communicator. Better communication throughout the NHS is what is needed. If public health, NHS England, social services and voluntary bodies do not work in co-operation, patients will not be safe. I add my congratulations to the maiden speaker for her passionate speech.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-02-12
Topic: Defense
David Brownrigg Craig (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 26. These are probing amendments about the phrase, in lines 8, 6 and 16 on page 64, "the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft" and seek the Minister’s response to a query I raised at Second Reading as to whether it would encompass all instances concerning an airborne unmanned aircraft where a constable required a person to ground it. As unmanned aircraft and drone technology advances, there may be pre-programmable types that, once airborne, will no longer be under active control from the ground As we advance into 5G, it might be possible for two or more individuals to have apps on their smartphones able to handle more than a single drone and passing control of them from one person to another. On a bigger scale, and as we know, this is what happens now when RAF operators controlling an RAF Predator UAV in the air over Syria from their base station in the United States pass monitoring and control to another operational team at RAF Waddington in the UK. Such control-sharing activity, scaled down, must be widely available soon, if it is not already With an app on a smartphone, I and many others can already turn lights or other devices on or off in our home at any time and from anywhere in the world with a wi-fi link. It will surely be possible for AN Other on the ground to switch from one UA onboard programme to another with just a smartphone. Noble Lords may have further suggestions of how and in what way drone and other unmanned aircraft capabilities will advance My amendment seeks to probe whether the present wording of Schedule 8, about an individual "controlling", is sufficiently embracing to meet present and future possibilities of unmanned aircraft operational misuse that a constable wants to stop. The amendment would cover more than in-hand control while airborne, which smacks merely of attempting to deal with the single hobby-type user. Until an incident has been investigated, it may not be clear whether the operator is just a lone nuisance type, as may have happened at Gatwick, or a member of some terrorist team with advanced technology at their disposal. In other words, is the present wording of the Bill sufficiently comprehensive for a constable to act to cover all types of possible future operation that could be unlawful? Indeed, what should the constable be required to do if the operator is not physically controlling the flight of the UA? Perhaps this, too, needs to be covered for completeness, for I doubt that even my amendment would be adequate This is my second amendment and, as I mentioned, it is purely probing, to seek a response from the Minister to my concern that the present phrasing may be overly restrictive and so inadequate. I beg to move.
Wuhan Coronavirus — House of Lords, 2020-02-11
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the update to the House. Among all those people to whom we owe a debt, we should particularly single out the chief medical officers, led by Chris Whitty, who is an epidemiologist and therefore has an in-depth understanding of the science. We should also thank the owners and crew of, and all those on board, the "Diamond Princess"—a British-owned vessel—who are working with the Japanese authorities and doing all they can to contain the outbreak that has occurred there One of the difficulties—this was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is not in her place at the moment—is that in the early stages this is like the common manifestation of any other viral disease. Therefore, self-isolation and being responsible by staying away from people is everyone’s responsibility with all such infections. Unfortunately, some turn out to be coronavirus. Are the diagnostic kits for Covid-19, which I think is now its official name, available to adequate numbers of hospital laboratories which are under public health supervision? Are those diagnostic kits available across all four nations of the United Kingdom? Are they linked to Colindale so that there is good co-ordination of the way in which the diagnostic procedures are undertaken?
Wuhan Coronavirus — House of Lords, 2020-02-11
Topic: Health
Narendra Babubhai Patel (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, it is always a pleasure to correct the former Secretary of State for Health. This virus is RNA in its genetic makeup. H1N1—the previous pandemic that we were worried about when we stockpiled the antivirals—had a DNA genetic make-up. Some antivirals work better with DNA than RNA, although the Minister was correct to say that there are several antivirals currently being tested to see whether they will work against the coronavirus. As far as a vaccine is concerned, it takes a long time to develop a vaccine; when you develop one, it takes even longer to see whether it is effective Last time we discussed this, I said that the Government were taking a proportionate action to contain the virus in the United Kingdom. I believe that to be so even today. However, we might be on the knife edge of a pandemic. If a pandemic is declared, the whole attitude to how we contain this changes. It becomes much more draconian, to stop the movement of people, isolate the index cases and identify the contacts. Currently, asking the Members of this House to wear masks would only make the public panic and ask why we are protecting ourselves when they are not being protected. It can be a good measure, but we have to wait to see how things develop. I would like to hear reassurance from the Minister that there are plans in place, so that if this becomes pandemic, the Government will take the draconian action that is required We are fortunate that, apart from the Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, who is a first-rate epidemiologist, we have Professor Piot, who discovered the Ebola virus, and Jeremy Farrar, chief executive of the Wellcome Trust. They have better knowledge on containing pandemics than anyone else in the world; I hope the Government will use their expertise.
Charitable and Voluntary Sector — House of Lords, 2020-04-30
Topic: Health
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-president of Hospice UK and Marie Curie Across the UK, hospices must raise £1.5 billion every year to provide essential expert and compassionate care. Over £1 billion comes from the public, through charity shops and fundraising. As the pandemic unfolded, Hospice UK estimated that a plummeting income to hospices of £70 million every month risked failing hospice services, which would throw enormous pressure on the NHS I thank the Chancellor for his swift action, announcing on 8 April an unprecedented £200 million package of support for hospices in England, with consequential funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as part of the Government’s immediate support to charities. This ensured that hospices remain an integral part of care services, as this pandemic has become a palliative care emergency. Hospices share innovations weekly through ECHO Zoom webinars that stimulate creativity and problem solving; contribute to major workstreams caring for those dying, whether of Covid-19 or non-Covid-19 causes; develop sensitive care planning that is respectful of human rights and individual needs; and integrate with bereavement services, particularly recognising the needs of bereaved children Looking ahead, charities must adapt, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in his important opening remarks, with new models of charitable and statutory services working more closely together than ever before. The change is seismic. Hospice and palliative care commitment to supporting people when in extremis remains stronger than ever.
Charitable and Voluntary Sector — House of Lords, 2020-04-30
Topic: Culture
Mary Watkins (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for securing this debate, and other speakers who have raised issues I would normally have raised in relation to vulnerable children, mental health and the homeless, particularly the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, concerning smaller overseas charities. Unless we continue to support these, we will not have global health security However, I want to discuss immediately the plight of small charities, including museums, using the Florence Nightingale Museum as an exemplar. I declare my interest as a trustee. The situation there at the moment is very financially unstable. The museum has four months of operating costs left—this is with the excellent furlough scheme in place. It costs £20,000 a month to operate while closed—maintaining security, conservation, basic engagement and business planning—and with only three and a half full-time equivalents out of our normal staff team of 13. At this time of year, given the Easter and May bank holidays, Nurses Week and, this year, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, the museum budgeted to take up to £3,000 per day. Instead, we closed on 17 March, which means no income. These are the months that pay for the quieter periods in winter The museum has been losing income since February when groups from overseas, notably China, Japan and Europe, began to cancel. We have also lost 20 school bookings, which reduces our ability to encourage people into the nursing profession at a young age. It is currently suggested that, post opening, museums and attractions will do well to attract 25% of 2019 figures. We will face the added stigma of being based in a hospital, and the added challenge of a central London venue, where very few people may wish to visit and which can be easily accessed only by public transport Social distancing measures of the type currently being employed by German museums post lockdown will not make museums sustainable without support: no group talks or performances; limited numbers. As a small charity we balance the budget each year, but we do not make considerable profits. It would be a sad reflection on our society if the only international nursing museum, the Florence Nightingale Museum, were forced to close at this point in its history. How do the Government plan to assist small museums over the next two years? Might this involve capital grants, perhaps to enable free access to certain museums as they gradually reopen?
Covid-19 Update — House of Lords, 2020-06-25
Topic: Culture
Michael Berkeley (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, as has been mentioned, classical musicians, orchestras, freelance players and venues have been particularly hard hit by the virus because they fall between the pillars of support that the Chancellor has erected. The Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness said, has made very welcome promises and has met leaders of these various institutions but what orchestras need this minute—before they go bust—is financial help. When might these good wishes be translated into a date and actual figures?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-06-25
Topic: Health
Molly Christine Meacher (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, my remarks are no criticism at all of the Minister, but I am deeply concerned about the regulations. They completely fail to include crucial mitigating measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just said, which are necessary for each step of the reopening of the economy if we are to avoid a second wave of the virus. In his detailed analysis of countries’ responses to Covid-19, Professor Jeffrey Sachs concludes that the Asia-Pacific region has been successful in controlling Covid using just three low-cost solutions: face masks—which is interesting—physical distancing, and test and trace. I do not think that face masks are mentioned at all in the regulations. Is that not remarkable when Professor Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the other day that people are safer one metre apart wearing masks than they are two metres apart not wearing masks? Yesterday, of course, the Prime Minister took further steps to open up the economy. Can the Minister explain why, when the scientific advice is clear that the wearing of masks reduces risks, these regulations do not pave the way for the compulsory wearing of masks in shops and other inside spaces where one-metre social distancing will be the norm Another yawning gap in the regulations is the absence of any mention of the Google/Apple app or indeed any other successful app used in other countries, and whether and precisely how such an app will be rolled out across this country in order to drive down infections and enable the latest plans to open up the economy to be carried out safely. Surely we need regulations now to put a successful app in place. The UK cannot afford to continue doing too little, too late to fight this virus. Christophe Fraser, disease epidemiologist at Oxford University, says that human tracing will not be enough to prevent a second wave. Will the Minister appeal to the Government to include in next week’s amendments to the regulations rules for the provision of a recognised app? If not, why not?
Care Homes: Covid-19 Testing — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Health
Questions: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which department or non-departmental public body is responsible for the programme of COVID-19 testing in care homes in England; and when they expect all care homes to be offered COVID-19 tests.
William Laming (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, will the Minister assure us that the department accepts that residential care homes exist for those who suffer from multiple and serious health problems? That being so, can he help us understand better why, when we have known for months that Covid-19 was a severe threat to residents and staff, it is still not possible to guarantee either testing or essential equipment?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-05-12
Topic: Health
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the justification for not providing Parliament with a draft of these regulations, as is usual, has been "the serious and imminent threat to public health" Notwithstanding that, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to say that our duty is to ask awkward questions and to scrutinise. I will use my three short minutes to do that Confusingly, while these regulations impose restrictions and fines for members of the public breaking the lockdown, a Cabinet Minister has said of Covid-19, "let it run hot". Our Minister, who replies for the whole Government, says that it was not his department that said this, but which of these strategies—carefully cautious or "let it rip"—is the Government’s position? When will he publish the scientific evidence behind the use of that phrase The Care Quality Commission is to investigate whether hospitals, some here in the north of England, might have broken the law by sending patients with Covid-19 back to care homes, where more than a quarter of Covid deaths have occurred. Managers and staff were not told that the patients being discharged were infected, triggering new fatal outbreaks among other residents. Will the Minister confirm that, in doing this, the law was indeed broken? When do the Government anticipate that the CQC will publish its report? Will the findings be presented to Parliament Will the Minister confirm that levels of coronavirus infection are probably at least five times higher among hospital and care home staff than in the wider population —I declare an interest in that one of my sons is an A&E doctor working in a hospital with Covid patients—and that coronavirus outbreaks in care homes are now leaking back into the community and driving the epidemic? Sir Ian Diamond, the head of the Office for National Statistics, says that the R number, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, "is driven by the epidemic in care homes" Will these regulations be used to stop carers visiting multiple care facilities? If so, what thought is being given to the care needs of residents and ensuring that staff who are infected are properly isolated I have written to the Minister about the importance of giving public health officers and local councils greater control over tackling the outbreak in their communities. Sir David King, the former Chief Scientific Adviser, says this will be the only way to contain new peaks. Does the Minister agree? I also hope that the Minister agrees that the need for a national care service, locally administered but with central oversight, on a par with the National Health Service and with more than Cinderella status, is now self-evident and long overdue.