argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Health
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Perhaps I was not listening—I do apologise. It says that puberty assessment and bone age assessment have been proved scientifically to be unreliable and that paediatricians should not be involved in age assessment. The RCPCH and other medical practitioners, such as dentists, as we have heard, consider it to be unethical to expose anyone to radiation from X-rays unnecessarily for non-clinical purposes. It also believes that age assessment requires informed consent, as other noble Lords have said, which it does not believe vulnerable young people such as asylum seekers are able to give No other child would be required to undergo such intrusive and potentially harmful procedures without the consent of a parent or guardian, yet the Government propose to subject unaccompanied child refugees to such procedures where consent would be given by "another person, of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State". Can the Minster explain who such a person might be and in what circumstances they would be able to give consent on behalf of the child, or is this yet another case of, "We can’t see how we can get around this problem, so let’s just say we’ll put it in regulations" Clause 51(7) says that refusal to undergo age assessment without a reasonable excuse should be taken as damaging to the credibility of a person. As others have said, this is coercion, plain and simple. In any event, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health provides reasonable excuses for not engaging in the kind of scientific methods the Government are proposing, so there is no point in the Government pursuing scientific methods to establish age; there is a reasonable excuse for refusing to engage in the process Part 4 should not stand part of the Bill. To be clear, Clauses 48 to 56 should not stand part of the Bill, and the rest is window dressing.
Covid-19 Update — House of Lords, 2021-07-08
Topic: Health
Nicholas Trench (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, at the press conference on Monday, the Prime Minister drew a distinction between crowded Tube trains and relatively empty carriages on trains, where he might choose not to wear a mask. The Health Secretary made exactly the same point on Tuesday’s "Today" programme. However, the Minister will be aware of the research showing that aerosols can hang in the air for many hours in enclosed spaces—which train carriages are. Despite what the Minister has just said about face masks, will that important factor be taken into account when a final decision is made about mask wearing on trains and other public transport?
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-07-05
Topic: Defense
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): From these Benches I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Minister in supporting the Armed Forces and recognising the huge debt that we as a country owe them every day of every year When I realised there was yet another Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order, I began to think that perhaps I was getting so old that time was running away from me, because it did not feel like a year since we last debated the continuation of the Armed Forces Act. Then I looked and realised that Her Majesty gave Royal Assent only in December 2021, so it is not quite that we have gone a year without discussing the Armed Forces In some ways, this legislation ought to be the most important parliamentary business that we conduct. Having our Armed Forces is vital. We often talk about the security of the realm being the most important duty of government, but at the moment we do not see very many people on the Government Benches. It may be that noble Lords are busy trying to work out whether there is indeed a Government who are going to ensure that the Armed Forces provide the security of the realm at the moment. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will remain in his role for a little while longer, because we clearly need to ensure that defence is a top priority This is a very simple piece of legislation, but it is very important. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, it matters because of discipline. The Minister mentioned that statutory instruments will be coming forward in future. I looked to see whether my noble friend Lord Thomas was here because I normally rely on him to deal with the legal aspect of forces discipline and those aspects of Armed Forces legislation This order gives us the opportunity not just to pay tribute to our Armed Forces but to ask Her Majesty’s Government what they are doing not just to ensure that there can be service discipline and that our Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, but that as a country and a Parliament we are ensuring that our Armed Forces have the resources they require in terms of procurement, that the equipment they work with is adequate and does not cause health issues, that they have adequate accommodation, that their morale is ensured, and that we look again at forces numbers because having legislation that simply says "We have Armed Forces" is not sufficient. We need to ensure that our Armed Forces are fit for the 21st century and for the many tasks that are asked of them. I hope that in her reply the Minister will be able to go a little broader than the legislation in front of us today.
Covid-19: R Rate and Lockdown Measures — House of Commons, 2020-06-08
Topic: Health
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I welcome today’s news from the Scottish Government that we have just had a second day in Scotland of no additional deaths from coronavirus, but I am concerned about the level of testing, particularly in a community setting, where it is nowhere near capacity. If we cannot have comprehensive testing, how can we have confidence in the R number? So how is the Secretary of State working with the Scottish Government to ensure that all the testing capacity, including in drive-through centres, is in use?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-04-05
Topic: Health
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): Well, that’s a question, my Lords. First, I declare an interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association and of GS1, the barcoding organisation I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, says—that it is not a remedy for the problem being described—but it would send a powerful message to the Government. It is a message which, judging by the debate in the Commons on this matter, I am afraid Ministers in the Commons have not really heard, although I acknowledge that in his opening remarks today the Minister certainly turned to the crux of the issue Essentially, with a Bill that gives the Government huge power over drug prices—indeed, it gives them absolute power—the real concern is that NHS patients will not get access to new medicines as they would in other countries. This in turn puts at risk investment in R&D by the pharmaceutical industry in this country, which in turn threatens to undermine the life sciences sector. It is one of the most crucial sectors in this country and in our economy, and post Brexit must become even more important. Essentially, we are seeking to turn this into a virtuous circle whereby the NHS is seen to want to invest in new medicines and treatments, industry feels that the UK is therefore a good place in which to invest, and our life sciences sector grows and becomes even more important The problem is that over the last few years we have seen increasing rationing or restrictions on access to these new and effective drugs. We have had a short debate on NICE. I was the Minister first in charge of NICE, going back some years now. When it was set up, it was, first, deemed to be wholly independent of the NHS in its judgments, and secondly, designed to speed up access to new technologies and medicines. However, in the past few years the remit has changed. It seems to have been pushed almost into part of NHS management and budgetary control. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, put his finger on it when he said that after NICE has reached a judgment that a medicine is both clinically and cost effective, NHS England has, in a number of ways, sought to put in additional controls. That is why there is concern about the new proposal: that if a NICE-approved treatment exceeds or is expected to exceed a cost of £20 million in any of the first three years, NHS England could ask for a longer period for its introduction. The Minister said that the budget impact test, as it has come to be known, is not a cap but a negotiating tactic. I understand that, but I put it to him that in the past few years NHS England has shown neither the willingness nor the capacity to do anything but reduce access for patients. It is very difficult not to see this as another hurdle.
House Business during the Pandemic — House of Commons, 2020-06-08
Topic: Health
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): To avoid inadvertently spreading the virus, should not the advice be that we should all wear face masks? We know that indoor spaces are the most dangerous in terms of spreading the virus, and it is clear that if we unknowingly have the virus, by wearing a face mask we reduce the risk of passing it to someone else from 17% to 3%. Would not that be sensible Government advice for this House as well?
Access to NHS Dentists — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Health
Philippa Whitford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Is not the underlying problem that there is no preventive dental contract in England? That means that people are going when they are in crisis and dentists are unwilling to take them on. England needs something like the Scottish Childsmile scheme, which takes children right through childhood.
House Business during the Pandemic — House of Commons, 2020-06-08
Topic: Health
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, but does he understand the frustration of so many of us in this place? This is not about the process of government or debate or scrutiny, important though they are. It is about public health. We are in the middle of a pandemic and we are having to travel, from nearby or far away, coming into contact with members of the public, potentially taking the virus from here to our constituencies and from our constituencies to here, dropping it off with various people along the way. That is why we are concerned, and to myself and many others, that is far more important than the process by which we scrutinise the Government.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2021-05-18
Topic: Defense
Elizabeth Manningham-Buller (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I swapped my slot with my noble friend Lady Meacher, at her request In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty the Queen referred to "measures to increase the safety and security of … citizens" I pick for comment from that broad aspiration the proposed legislation to make it easier to counter threats to this country from other states: the counter-state threats Bill, to which the Minister referred at the beginning of this debate. We do not yet have a Bill, although we can get a reasonable sense of it from the Home Office consultation. The Minister described the aims of the legislation and—for once, despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that Cross-Benchers always disagree with the Government—I wish to reinforce what the Minister said in his opening remarks: modern tools and powers are needed to detect, prevent and respond to threats from states whose aim is to undermine the safety and interests of the UK In thinking about what I wanted to say at this very preliminary stage, I reflected that in my dozen or so years in your Lordships’ House I have rarely spoken about hostile state activity, despite many years of experience of trying to counter it, mainly in the Cold War. The fault is mine; my excuse is that successive Governments have not had the appetite to tackle the problem, rather preferring to rely on creaky legislation from the last century designed to deal with German espionage in the run-up to the First World War and Nazi espionage in the run-up to the Second World War. The Government moved to fill some of the legislative gap in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, but then recognised that more was needed. I strongly welcome their intention to legislate, and I look forward to seeing what the Bill says Why do we need it, and what are we talking about in 2021? I start with what we are not talking about. As a young intelligence officer, I remember interviewing a Russian intelligence officer who was distressed to discover that the papers in his carefully chosen dead letter box—a hollowed-out tree in which his agent was going to stow top-secret documents—had been eaten by squirrels. That is not what we are talking about any more; we are talking about activity at scale—industrial, economic and academic espionage, and cyberattacks to steal our secrets, distort data, spread lies, amplify disinformation, and, as I hope is of particular concern to this House, to interfere with and undermine democratic process I look forward to the scrutiny of this overdue legislation. I do not anticipate that it will have an easy passage, as it is a complex subject, but we need a law that is balanced and proportionate, recognising the public interest while allowing us to better defend ourselves against covert attacks, of which the scale and cost of the damage are not well understood.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-01
Topic: Health
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Care homes in my constituency and right across the country are currently waiting several weeks to access coronavirus tests and those in supported living still cannot access regular testing. I wrote to the Care Minister last month about this issue, but I have yet to receive a reply. So will the Secretary of State please confirm today when regular and swift testing will be available in care homes and supported living, or will he finally admit that the so-called protective ring for social care simply does not exist?
Public Health — House of Commons, 2020-11-04
Topic: Health
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I accept the Prime Minister’s logic and think it is far more dangerous to do nothing than to do what he proposes, but does he accept that we need to learn some serious lessons from the first lockdown, particularly about the impact on cancer patients? There was a 100,000 backlog when it came to treatment and diagnosis at one point. Cancer Research UK estimates that 35,000 people might unnecessarily lose their lives to cancer because of wrong decisions. Will he accept that, while there are many hospitals that are, shall I say, clean sites, where covid is not being treated or is not present, there is an opportunity to use those sites to treat cancer patients, catch up with cancer, save those lives and not make the same mistakes as we did first time?
Covid-19 Update — House of Commons, 2020-09-21
Topic: Health
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of this dreadful virus was the loss of life in and the impact on our social care sector, and we must learn the lessons from that as we head into a second wave. While he has emphasised in the media and in his statement the prioritisation of testing in care homes, could he explain why a number of care homes are still reporting a two-week delay in receiving test results? Will he clarify whether the prioritisation also includes staff providing care in people’s homes?
Covid-19 Update and Hospitality Curfew — House of Commons, 2020-10-01
Topic: Health
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The original urgent question was about the 10 pm pubs curfew, and after this statement it is clear that the Government are simply not listening. They seem to be covering their eyes and ears and singing "La, la, la, la." The Secretary of State says that this is under review, but the evidence is clear: the 10 pm pubs curfew has been a hammer blow to hospitality, and turfing crowds of people out of covid-secure venues on to the streets is putting lives and livelihoods at risk Since reopening in July, businesses on every single one of our high streets have put blood, sweat and tears into making their venues covid-secure, but they are trading at a reduced capacity. Since the pubs curfew was introduced, some of them have seen a further 50% reduction. The Prime Minister announced the blanket 10 pm closing time last Tuesday. Within hours, the industry warned that it would lead to chaos on the streets, and it did. The shocking truth is that this Government have, by their own admission, made no assessment of the cost of this measure to the industry, and SAGE has confirmed that it was never even consulted on whether a 10 pm curfew would be effective. Now, experts are telling us that it is making the risk of covid transmission worse Public Health England’s weekly surveillance reports are clear: outbreaks of the virus in hospitality venues are responsible for less than 3% of all cases, and they have not contributed to any of the increase, yet the Government are making thousands upon thousands of hospitality jobs unviable, undermining public health and killing our high streets. The Government like to talk about balance and the tough choices that they have to make between public health and the economy, but the shocking truth is that the pubs curfew is bad for both, and the longer the Government defend it, the more damage it will do. People are scared. Care homes are becoming prison-like, students are being locked up and businesses are saying that without a further package of support they will be closed by Christmas. I asked for some evidence behind this measure; the Secretary of State has provided none. That is why the curfew must be scrapped today.
Mental Health Act Reform — House of Lords, 2021-01-18
Topic: Health
Elizabeth Barker (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this is yet another NHS document which makes not a single mention of the needs of LGBT people. The Statement is in effect an admission that the Mental Health Act 2007 was deeply flawed and, as a result, thousands of people have been subject to wrongful treatment. Will the Government act now to stop the abuse of community treatment orders and other elements of that Act that have led to the position that is so accurately described by Sir Simon Wessely?
UK Terrorism Threat Level — House of Commons, 2020-11-05
Topic: Defense
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. He is well regarded across the House because he takes his duties seriously, and he generally goes about his business in a thoughtful and non-partisan way that prioritises keeping us all safe. I think we should place that on the record, whatever other disagreements we may occasionally have. With that in mind, is he aware of the comments of former EU security commissioner, Julian King, who said that a Brexit deal would still provide useful access to intelligence and security co-operation across the European Union, but that a no-deal Brexit would mean cutting ourselves off from that? Given his approach in other areas, what is the Minister doing to ensure that we have the best possible access to security and intelligence sharing post 31 December?
International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment — House of Commons, 2020-11-05
Topic: Health
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I entirely agree with his sentiments. We have seen that those who are on the frontline, those who are marginalised in our society and those from minority backgrounds are often the most impacted, so it is even more important that we consider the treatments and vaccines that are available for them The two drugs that have been proven so far to help treat covid-19 are dexamethasone and remdesivir. The entire global stock of remdesivir was bought up by the United States Government during the summer, hence Donald Trump was in a position to receive the drug when he became unwell. What is left of the stock is currently accessible only at a very high price. The manufacturer, Gilead, sells it at almost £2,000 for a five-day course of treatment, yet it is believed that the cost to produce it is £7 Fortunately, dexamethasone is widely available and a cheaply sourced steroid. If a patient suffering from covid requires ventilation, administering this drug reduces the chance of death by up to a third. That is great news and has greatly improved outcomes for patients who need to be ventilated. But for there to be a chance for that drug to be effective, there must be enough ventilators available for patients who need them, and there must be enough oxygen to supply those ventilators. Again, in some of the most vulnerable places globally, access to those things are very limited. In South Sudan, for example, a report earlier this year stated that there were only four ventilators available in the whole country—four This debate is not just about the cost of drugs or vaccines. It is also about the resources, technology and equipment needed to manage a pandemic successfully. Even with easily accessible and cheaper treatments, there is no equality of access internationally. As things stand, we run a serious risk that by 2022 we will inhabit a two-tier planet in terms of the pandemic response.
International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment — House of Commons, 2020-11-05
Topic: Health
Layla Michelle Moran (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she share my concern that those parts of the world where people do not have immediate access to healthcare systems also do not have furlough schemes, and people do not have the money to be able to isolate? The public health aspect is just as important as access to medicines.
International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment — House of Commons, 2020-11-05
Topic: Health
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I entirely agree. Dare I say it, but even the UK’s Prime Minister this week accepted that the isolate part of the test, trace and isolate system is not working. That is largely driven by the fact that people who have an economic need to continue to work will do so if the supports are not available, and that must be true in other parts of the world as well As I was saying, the most affluent countries will inevitably benefit, in terms of vaccines, access to treatment, some form of recovery and a return to aspects of day-to-day life, which we so miss in this place and beyond. For the majority of people in this world, that will, arguably, be a limited prospect; it would be a hollow victory indeed if we can get the virus under control while many people around the world continue to suffer. It would be a false victory, too. Let me go back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I mentioned at the start. In order for a vaccine to be effective, we need to suppress the virus both at home and abroad, because coronavirus does not respect national borders. No one is safe until everyone is safe. That approach has been endorsed by the UK Government. I thank them for recognising that covid-19 medical products need to be treated as global public goods and for making commitments to deliver on that.
Covid-19 — House of Lords, 2021-05-26
Topic: Health
Rajinder Paul Loomba (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, is the Minister aware of the desperate need for second vaccine doses in Nepal? While the majority of the most vulnerable old people have had their first doses, the suspension of exports from India means that they now cannot get second doses and time is running out. Will the UK offer doses to rectify that situation?