argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution today. In 1996, on the back of outrages in east Africa and the fact that Sudan had not long gotten rid of Osama bin Laden from its territory, the US launched a cruise missile attack on Al-Shifa on the basis that it was the site of a plant for the creation of VX. It later transpired that the Al-Shifa plant was producing pharmaceuticals and that there was no evidence whatsoever that chemicals were being used in any improper way. The Sudanese still refer to the incident, keeping the site as rubble, and, on the occasions that I have been there, have offered to show people, including the Americans, what the plant was. I use that as an example of where things have been found to be wrong. Intelligence is not sacrosanct. I have never been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and am never likely to be, but it is right for this Parliament to hold the Government to account, and there is nothing more important than Parliament holding the Government to account on whether it is right to go to war The Al-Shifa example is about the Americans and their lack of intelligence in this respect. The strike became known as a wag-the-dog incident, because it was more to do with President Clinton trying to offset some of his own problems at home. I cannot say what the motive behind the thinking of the current President of the United States is, but there are sometimes ulterior motives for why people launch attacks. In our case, we have Afghanistan, when we were told that not a shot would be fired and that it would be a straightforward invasion, and Libya, which we were told was about regime change and evolving a democratic structure.
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): This debate today, about how we take decisions on UK military action, is an important one. The Prime Minister’s decision to commit British service personnel to involvement in limited airstrikes against Syrian targets last week has generated strong feelings on both sides I have mixed views on the rights and wrongs of that action, and I do not know how I would have voted had the decision been presented to Parliament, but this debate is not about that. It is about the process by which decisions of this nature are taken and the right of the Government, the Executive, to retain flexibility to act without recourse to Parliament. I think the Executive should have that right, and had I been in the Prime Minister’s shoes last week, it is likely that I would have chosen a similar course There is an erratic President in the White House upon whom we wish to exercise influence, a UN Security Council rendered powerless by the Russian veto, a hung Parliament and the reuse of chemical weapons in a country that was supposed to have eradicated its stockpile five years ago. I do not have access to the intelligence that the Prime Minister does, but I recognise that the context in which she was acting could not have been more complex. This debate, though, is not about the specifics of the past week; it is about the nature of the decision-making processes in future and whether we should constrain the hand of government.
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making some strong points. I believe the Prime Minister should have come here last week and we should have had that debate on whatever the rights and wrongs of this were. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that not only would a very fixed war powers Act be difficult to achieve in debate, because of the wide range of views, as we have seen in this debate, but that in the one example where such an Act does exist, the United States, it has never, as far as I know, been used to prosecute a President and many actions have been taken beyond the 60-day limit? Even in practice these things do not operate in the way it is claimed.
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): In 2011, this House was promised that the Government would "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action." That would have completed a painful journey that started before the Iraq campaign. It took the threat of a wildcat Parliament in Church House to drag the Government to this place to set up a vote on that matter. It would have seen Parliament play a formal role, under statute, in the process of war and of action overseas. There were discussions over five years about how this might happen, before another Secretary of State came along and abandoned these plans because he believed that they would constrain operational flexibility Although those plans were abandoned, we have seen this week that the discussion is far from over. If we all look at our mailbags from the past few days, we will see that our constituents expect us to play a role in this process. They expect to hold us to account for our actions, and I want that.
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): I will not give way for the minute because I wish to make some progress Of course, that would be exceptionally difficult, but we were sent here to tackle the exceptionally difficult. In 2013, Parliament debated military action—that has been played out many times over the past few hours—and MPs were given the opportunity to have their say, for better or for worse, to cast their votes, to speak up on behalf of their constituents and to be held accountable. It seemed at that point that a good convention had been established and that it reflected the way that things would be done.
Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval — House of Commons, 2018-04-17
Topic: Defense
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): I am not arguing for that. We could weave into the statute circumstances in which there was a clear and immediate need to act in the national interest, and the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I am getting to that very point I want to draw on the work of the former Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I know that you have a keen eye for detail and strong powers of recall, Mr Speaker, so you will remember that it was my predecessor, Graham Allen, who chaired that Committee. I am afraid that a keen interest in constitutional reform and all those sorts of matters does not pass down through the generations of Nottingham North parliamentarians—or if it does, it has skipped me. Nevertheless, I say to hon. Members that the Committee’s excellent documents are a manual for how we might have such a statute in our law. They offer comprehensive insight. They list the hurdles that we would face, including those regarding the courts, and outline the solutions that are there at our disposal. The solutions are there, so this can be done if there is a will to do it The previous Prime Minister said that consulting Parliament regarding military action was a "good convention". Clearly that convention leaves too much room for debate, as I think this week has shown. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is broken. Now is the time to settle this one way or another. We should put Parliament’s role in statute. Even if the position is for Parliament to play no role at all, that ought to be written down, and that is why we need a war powers Act. What happened last week was a fudge. It will not do that we are doing a hokey cokey over whether we are coming to London to discuss these matters when we are dealing with really significant incidents across the globe The Prime Minister says that the convention still stands, so she believes that Parliament ought to have a role in military action. Well, now is the time to make good on that. Through legislation, we can show once and for all what Parliament does and does not do, and how—in the popular words of the day—we have taken back control for this Parliament.
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): The report is the latest piece of recent evidence revealing systematic failures in our mental health services. It follows similar reports of the past few weeks that call into question the Government’s claims to have made mental health a priority equal to physical health. In this report, we see evidence of services actively putting up barriers to treatment, resulting in children and young people having to reach crisis point before being able to get access to the right treatment. Children are suffering because of those high eligibility thresholds. We know that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age of 14 and that 75% develop before the age of 18. Does the Minister recognise that imposing high eligibility thresholds means that children and young people are treated only when their condition becomes more serious? These high thresholds are even prompting GPs to tell children to pretend that their mental health is worse than it is. Will the Minister agree to look into referral criteria as a matter of urgency, so that children and young people get the proper treatment at the right time The report links these excessively high eligibility thresholds and reductions in access with funding reductions and not enough capacity for services to respond to local needs, so, whatever the Minister says, clearly not enough money is reaching the frontline. Can the Minister tell us how he plans to address that? The report, like the CQC’s recent report on rehabilitation services, raises concerns about out-of-area placements, which we know are a barrier to recovery. Will he tell the House what action is being taken to increase the number of in-patient beds available locally Finally, what will the Minister do to address the clear problems, highlighted in this report and others, associated with the rigid transition at age 18 from child and adolescent to adult mental health services, which is also a barrier to accessing care?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The Care Quality Commission’s review found that children were waiting up to 18 months to receive treatment for their mental health conditions. In Lewisham, the Government are cutting the budget for child and adolescent mental health services by 5%. The Green Paper will not help children currently waiting. What will the Government do to address this?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister’s description of mental health provision will not be recognised by anyone providing or using services. Does he think that cutting the funding for the north west boroughs partnership year on year since 2011 has led to improved services for young people in St Helens?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): With the understaffing of mental health services and the recent Health Select Committee report on the nursing shortage, does the Minister accept that the Government’s decision to remove nursing bursaries, which has particularly affected the number of students training to be mental health nurses, was a mistake?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will know from his own background that primary care does not always have the necessary expertise in mental health. How will he guarantee that every GP surgery will have the necessary capacity to deliver excellence in mental health services for our young people?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Tomorrow, I am meeting the chief executive of my local mental health trust because we are so desperately worried about the mental health provision for young people in York. We are not only short of staff but short of resources. It takes time to train mental health staff, so what are the Government going to do in the interim to ensure that we have staff in the service?
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People — House of Commons, 2018-03-08
Topic: Health
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister listen more carefully to the voice of parents? All my experience as chair of the Westminster Commission on Autism tells me that if parents think there is something wrong with their child—whether it is a mental health challenge or autism—they want early diagnosis and treatment, and they want it at the standard that they have in Sweden.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Questions: All of us in the House will have been saddened last week by the tragic death of a homeless man just yards from here. Will the Minister tell us how the Cabinet Office is working with all Departments to ensure that this crisis is resolved quickly?; What plans does my right hon. Friend have to move more civil service jobs outside London, and has Scotland been considered as an excellent destination for Government Departments or agencies?; Dounreay in my constituency is being decommissioned, and it is crucial that both levels of government should work in harmony to ensure future employment for the people of my constituency. Canada and Australia typify joint working between levels of government. Will the Minister work very hard indeed to ensure that the Scottish Government and the UK Government work together to allay the fears of my constituents and to provide future employment?; Too few of our small businesses apply to sell their goods to Government because they are worried about the bureaucracy involved. What reassurance can the Minister give them and, specifically, what feedback is available to them when they do so?; Will my hon. Friend mark the centenary of women’s suffrage by giving Government support to the Overseas Electors Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) to enfranchise British citizens who have lost the right to vote?
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the appointment of Sir Brian Langstaff as the judge for the public inquiry into contaminated blood, but will he reassure the House that the inquiry will have a families-first approach, that an outward-facing secretariat will support all those affected, and that meetings will be held around the regions and nations of this country?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, although would have been nice for the victims to have heard a little more about the legal aid and compensation issue. He was absolutely right to describe our regulatory framework as world leading. It is, of course, European and precautionary based. Will he dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary’s comments last week in which he included medicines regulation in the list of those areas for which he favoured full regulatory divergence?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): As the chair of the all-party group on oral hormone pregnancy tests, I am disappointed with the wording of today’s announcement. What happened with Primodos was a scandal similar to the Hillsborough, contaminated blood and sexual abuse scandals. Victims of Primodos and their families have waited 40 years for an answer to this grave historical injustice. It was a deliberate criminal cover-up by the statutory authorities of the day. The scientific evidence now shows a link between Primodos and deformities that was known to the drugs companies and our regulatory bodies 40 years ago. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review—we want a full public inquiry—looks at the regulatory failures that took place 40 years ago? There was a systematic and deliberate cover-up, including the destruction of documents, by our health bodies as well as the drugs manufacturers. Primodos is, therefore, perhaps different from some of the other cases. We demand a proper inquiry and proper compensation and that the victims be put at the heart of the inquiry. They were completely ignored by the expert working group—that document was not worth the paper it was published on.
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): Constituents of mine have been affected by both sodium valproate and Primodos. The Secretary of State has already heard the dismay expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) at the outcome of the review by the expert working group, but may I ask him another specific question? What he has announced today will not give a great amount of satisfaction to people, and confidence that his Department will take notice of Baroness Cumberlege’s review will be reduced by a written response that I received yesterday which stated that the Department had no plans to fund any independent scientific research on hormone pregnancy tests. We know that Dr Vargesson produced a report last week. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Baroness Cumberlege looks very carefully at this particular issue?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to look further at these very concerning issues, but I fear that his putting them all in one place means that he may not be giving sufficient attention to the Primodos issue, which is a scandal of very many years’ standing. I do not think that the recent report of the expert working group is the basis on which Baroness Cumberlege or anyone else should look further at the matter, because it was a complete whitewash, and the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge that. I think that if he were to do so, the people affected by Primodos over the last 40 years or more would feel much more confident that the process that he has described today might enable them to secure some resolution.
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will know the phrase "the patronising disposition of unaccountable power", which applied in the Hillsborough families’ fight to get justice, and applies, it seems to me, in what has happened to the groups affected by today’s statement. Will the Secretary of State explain why Baroness Cumberlege’s report will not come straight to Parliament, so it can make a decision about how patients can get justice quicker than has happened in many cases such as the ones we are discussing today?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): The expert working group that the Government set up on Primodos changed its own terms of reference. It refused to look at all the scientific evidence and it did not have the confidence of the families affected. How will the Secretary of State’s proposals be any different?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Emma Ann Hardy (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the audit on vaginal mesh and the promised register, but there are a couple of things I want to raise. One is support for victims. My constituent Angie was referred from Hull to Manchester to see somebody, and has now been told she will have to wait months before anybody can properly analyse what has happened to her, so can more resource be given to help the victims of vaginal mesh? Also, will the Secretary of State look into the licensing process on how these things get into the market and are put out there for use by surgeons? Finally, we should not just look at training, because it is not just about the training for how we put these things in; I believe that the product itself is faulty.
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Joan Marie Ryan (Labour, Centre-left): Those whose lives have been forever changed by the drug Primodos will be very disappointed today, despite there being a step in the right direction. Asking Lord O’Shaughnessy to drive forward the recommendations of the expert working group will not bring any confidence. That expert working group changed its terms of reference: it was asked to examine whether a possible association exists between Primodos and birth defects and it did not do that; it looked at a causal association. That is the crux of the problem, and that is what makes that working group’s findings unacceptable, aside from the fact that the scientific evidence not included existed before it even started its investigation. Unless these factors are taken into account in a wide-ranging independent inquiry, I doubt those victims will ever get the satisfaction and justice they deserve.
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Forty-four years ago, my constituent Lesley Holmes took two Primodos tablets that had been handed to her by her trusted GP, to check whether she was pregnant. She was, but the consequences for her son have been devastating. With the expert working group’s report having been stripped of its credibility, Lesley is still seeking answers and recognition of her family’s plight. The Secretary of State appears to agree that we need to recognise that fact and provide the answers, but how long is this going to take? How is he going to ensure that the outcome is actually credible this time?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Margaret Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): Campaigners on Primodos will be hugely disappointed by the Secretary of State’s statement and his failure to recognise the concerns they have raised about the expert working group. That aside, how many patients does he envisage being involved in the review, and how does he believe that they will be best accessed to ensure that those people who are quiet actually have their voices heard?
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware that many of the women who took Primodos would not necessarily have known at the time that that was what they were taking or what the consequences were, and it is only later that they may have realised what took place. How will they be brought into the review? If there is to be compensation at some point, what will the test be? It would be unfair for them to have to prove that they were victims of the drug.
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review — House of Commons, 2018-02-21
Topic: Health
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): What advice has the Secretary of State sought from the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Pathologists? What involvement will those bodies have in the review?