argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Ann Coffey (Labour, Centre-left): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, part of the new clause proposes a proper assessment of some of the issues surrounding this question. I hope that during the assessment we would get much better facts about what is and what is not happening Women are pregnant in very different circumstances, subject to different pressures—economic, familial and community—that can all influence a pregnant woman’s state of mind and her attitude to continuing her pregnancy. If there is no substantiated evidence that doctors are granting abortions on the grounds of gender alone, we might be dealing with a more complex issue, which is how wider community and cultural attitudes to girls and women affect the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman Therefore, before legislating we should examine the facts relating to this complex issue, because I am concerned that the insertion of the proposed statement might have the unwanted consequence of women who might otherwise have access to an abortion on the grounds of physical and mental welfare being denied a termination. New clause 25 would arrange for an assessment of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland to be published within six months of Royal Assent. Of course, included in that assessment should be the experiences of women who feel that they have been pressured to have their pregnancies terminated Like other hon. Members, I have received briefings from many organisations and groups on the issue, and they demonstrate its complexity. One group that is in favour of new clause 1 talked about a growing body of research comprising the experiences of women who have talked about having sex-selective abortions in the UK as well as abroad. It states: "We know from experience that women are having sex-selective abortions in the UK, and we feel their experiences—which reflect a much wider problem—should be taken seriously before the situation worsens." Another group that is opposed to new clause 1 has said that it would "have far reaching and unintended consequences for the very women it purports to protect." It talked about the need to locate the protection of women from sex-selective abortion within a safeguarding framework. It states: "There is a need to examine the issue alongside other forms of gender discrimination that impact on the practice, including the practice of dowry, domestic violence and honour based violence." It therefore calls for a wide-ranging inquiry, including on available support services.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Other
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): Order. This is not an opportunity for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a speech. This debate must end at 9 o’clock and many Members wish to speak, so interventions must be brief. I think that we have the gist of what he was saying—
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): The impassioned speeches that we have heard in this debate are testament to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. New clause 1 would amend the Abortion Act 1967 and proposes that a pregnancy could not "be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child." New clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone and for this to be followed by a strategic Government plan that addresses concerns about the prevalence of termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Scotland and Wales I am in favour of new clause 25 as the best way to address concerns about sex-selective abortions. Outwardly, the intentions behind new clause 1 might seem reasonable. However, a wide range of well-respected organisations and experts have raised concerns, pointing out a number of unintended and troubling consequences. The organisations include the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the TUC, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Genetic Alliance UK, Imkaan and the Southall Black Sisters, among many others.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to continue because we have a lot to get through and many Members wish to speak New clause 1 represents a significant departure from the current principles on which abortion law in this country is based. Given that this is a matter of huge significance, the new clause deserves fuller debate and scrutiny than we have the opportunity for in the remaining 24 minutes of this debate Choosing to terminate a pregnancy simply because the foetus one is carrying is not the sex one wishes for is a notion that most people find abhorrent. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) confirmed, sex-selective abortion is already illegal under the Abortion Act 1967.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not going to take his intervention The Government, along with the chief medical officer, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives, have said that abortions carried out on the sole premise of foetal sex are illegal. As we have heard, updated guidance and instructions to doctors published within the past 12 months have clarified this. All independent sector providers have also agreed to follow the revised guidance as part of their licensing agreements. Let me be clear: we do not need new clause 1 to make sex-selective abortion illegal. However, it is right that we should send a strong message from this Parliament that gender-selective abortions are wrong. We can do that today by requiring the Government to carry out a thorough assessment and produce an action plan to address the root causes of this practice. That is what new clause 25 would do The change to the law proposed in new clause 1 would not only fail to address the root issues that lie behind the problem but have serious unintended consequences. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Congleton and to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I point to the text of new clause 1, which it is worth reading out: "Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child." It says that nothing is to be so interpreted, so that includes medical grounds, the well-being of the mother, and gender-specific abnormalities. At best, this would create uncertainty and doubt for doctors who administer abortions in these situations and a legal grey area for women who are already facing a very difficult decision. I heard the former Attorney-General’s intervention, but I have listened to many legal experts who have written on the pages of many papers—
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, but, as we have heard, many legal experts dispute that position. I refer to the specific text of the new clause, which says nothing about, and is in direct conflict with, paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act The Genetic Alliance has said that "the consequences of this amendment could be devastating to women and couples at risk of having a child affected by a serious x-linked condition." I have heard from one family where two sisters were carriers of x-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, a disease that affects only boys. After years of thinking, one sister decided not to have any children, because she did not want to risk the chance of having to choose between having a very poorly son or a termination. Her sister decided—also after many years of consideration—to have children and went on to have three healthy daughters. Those were the choices that those women made after much consideration and deliberation with their families. How can Parliament take that decision away from them? I am sure that no one would wish to deprive their daughter, sister or partner of that choice. It is surely not for Parliament to rush this through in the short time available and deny families the opportunity to have children or a healthy baby Another serious concern is that new clause 1 is not just a clarification of the law, but a fundamental reform of the essential principles on which existing abortion law in this country been based for 47 years. The Abortion Act 1967 places the physical and mental health of the woman as the overriding concern of a doctor authorising abortion. Our current legislation refers to the foetus rather than the unborn child. That is because, across our legislation and common law, children are accorded a wide range of protections and rights that Parliament has previously agreed should not be accorded to the foetus Changing the language of the Abortion Act, as this new clause would do, would send a very different signal to the courts and open up different judicial interpretations of abortion or new consequences and restrictions that would go far beyond the issue of sex selection. For the first time since legislation in 1929, new clause 1, if passed, could afford the foetus rights that would be in conflict with those of the mother and it could seriously jeopardise the future of safe, legal abortion in the UK.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): I am not going to give way. I am going to wrap up, because I am conscious of the time and Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to conclude There are many other points that I would have liked to address, particularly the issue of custom and practice and why new clause 25 addresses the issue of coercion in communities, which is something we all want to deal with Voting against new clause 1 is not an indication of support for sex-selective practices, but an acknowledgement that it would do nothing to address the causes or reduce the incidences of sex-selective abortion and that some serious negative unintended consequences would result from enacting this proposed change to the Serious Crime Bill Few people would support the idea that families should be able to have abortions on the grounds of gender alone. That is why it is illegal under our current law. New clause 1 represents a significant departure from the current principles on which abortion law in this country is based. Instead, new clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone, to ensure that we have a full understanding of the practice and the extent of the problem, and for that to be followed by a Government strategy to tackle it accordingly, based on the evidence of what works. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will vote against new clause 1 and in support of new clause 25.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): I speak as one of the 13 MPs who co-sponsored the original ten-minute rule Bill of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I did that because I think she was right to make people aware that sex selective abortion is illegal, and I thought her Bill was a powerful and good tactic to do that. However, I feel a bit as though I have been pulled along by a Trojan horse because, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, the new clause confers the status of an unborn child on the foetus, and that radically changes our abortion laws in a way I believe is dangerous As I said in an earlier intervention, clauses 73 and 74, which deal with coercive behaviour, contain a powerful tool that we should use to prevent the kind of coercion to which the hon. Member for Congleton referred. In those references she quoted extensively from an organisation based in my constituency, but personal experience of how that organisation has failed to help individual constituents has led me to the conclusion that it is not possible to depend on the accuracy of what it says. I am therefore concerned that we are using anecdote from an unreliable source to make legislation on the hoof Having supported the hon. Lady’s original ten-minute rule Bill, I have since read something from an organisation in America that is closely linked to the all-party pro-life group that she chairs. The head of that group stated: "I propose that we—the pro-life movement—adopt as our next goal the banning of sex…selective abortion. By formally protecting all female fetuses from abortion on the ground of their sex, we would plant in the law the proposition that the developing child is a being whose claims on us should not depend on their sex…This sense of contradiction will be further heightened among radical feminists—" I think he means people like me— "the shock troops of the abortion movement. They may believe that the right to abortion is fundamental to women’s emancipation, but many will recoil at the thought of aborting their unborn sisters." My final reason for arguing that we should reject the new clause is the concern of the British Medical Association that it will make doctors more fearful of providing abortion services and training to carry out abortions. One of the biggest risks for young women seeking help to terminate a pregnancy is not getting that help in time, as a result of which we end up with late abortions and women who cannot have abortions when they are entitled to them. One reason for that is the growing number of doctors who are reluctant to perform abortions because they practise defensive medicine. I have no doubt that the new clause is unnecessary and likely to increase that and make it more difficult for women to access their right to termination—a right that I am afraid the hon. Member for Congleton, although I agree when she says that we all agree that abortion should not be available on the basis of gender, does not support at all.
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
Yvonne Helen Fovargue (Labour, Centre-left): In the Wigan borough, 3,386 people have had their housing benefit reduced due to the bedroom tax. Wigan & Leigh Housing estimates that it will take over seven years to re-house those who wish to downsize. Many of those affected have contacted me because, despite working, they are struggling to pay bills and feed their family. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the average income of those subject to the bedroom tax?
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
John Eugene Joseph Dromey (Labour, Centre-left): Once in every generation, there is a tax so bad that the next generation looks back and asks, "Why did they do it?" Such was the poll tax, now the bedroom tax. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many victims of domestic violence liable to the bedroom tax have had their sanctuary rooms deemed as spare rooms?
Housing Benefit — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Housing
Questions: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.; What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State is too complacent. The fact is that when a family pays the bedroom tax, the whole family suffers. The actual number of people affected is much higher than the numbers he quoted, at 750,000. Making families move is unkind, especially when it disrupts children’s education. There are not enough smaller properties, as colleagues have said, and people cannot move. So why did not the Government vote with Labour before Christmas to abolish the bedroom tax?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Joan Lorraine Walley (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important for the House to understand that the Select Committee was simply operating in such a way as to ensure that our report was helpful in terms of the legislation coming forward—the Infrastructure Bill that we shall be dealing with later today. What perhaps needs to happen, following on from your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, is consideration of what rules and guidance there can be in order that those of us on the Liaison Committee can make absolutely sure that we do not, as it were, miss the bus. There is no point in having important recommendations coming forward when legislation is being rushed through in this place, and it is then too late to have the informed debate that this House of Commons absolutely has to have.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly will, Mr Speaker; I have every intention in that direction. Could the subsidy, help and support that Members of Parliament get be circulated again to them, because many I talk to are not aware of the scheme?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker, I completely endorse your point about the Minister being an extraordinary specimen of humanity, which we commented on in Committee on many occasions I will not detain the House long, but may I say a few words? I welcome what the Minister said about the Committee stage, which was conducted maturely. There are still differences that we will debate today—fairly sharp ones in many cases—but there was movement, and I welcome the Minister’s approach in Committee on such areas. However, he is right to say that we asked for two days on Report. That should not have been too much to ask for a Bill that was introduced in the other place, and to which whole new areas were added when it reached this place, to the extent that even the long title had to be changed in Committee. That is not a good way to approach legislation. Against that background, it should not have been too much to have two days for proper scrutiny on Report and Third Reading; sadly, we have been denied that opportunity The problem with debating programme motions is that there is always this dilemma for the House and for the Opposition: do we debate the fact that we have not got enough time to talk about the Bill, or do we get on with talking about it in the time available? I will not detain the House by dividing on the programme motion, but for the benefit of all Members I want it to be recorded that the Bill was introduced and pursued in a cack-handed way, and that it should receive greater scrutiny today than the time available allows.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): However lyrical, charming, elegant and extraordinary the Minister is, and however beautifully he has taken the Bill through all its stages thus far, it is a bit rich for him to enjoin us not to ruin it at the end, because unfortunately it was another Department that tried to ruin his Bill. His former Parliamentary Private Secretary, the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, over whom he no longer seems to have any control whatever, insisted that large amendments be added only a week ago on a whole new matter that had nothing whatever to do with the Bill—the electronic communications code. That was part of some magic deal that was being done with the mobile telephone operators before Christmas, which has now crumbled to dust. Those amendments were foisted on the Bill—it is not so much a Christmas tree Bill as the whole of Oxford Circus, it has so many baubles on it The truth is that the amendments that were suddenly added to the Bill were interlopers. The Minister says that the programme motion is fine, because he now wishes to withdraw the amendments that he insisted were added to the Bill only a week ago—the shortest-lived amendments in the 750-year history of this Parliament, no doubt. However, we now have to debate removing them, having never had an opportunity properly to debate putting them into the Bill in the first place Although I accept that the Minister is a wonderful chap—I see that he is now pointing to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and telling him off—I gently say to the Government that it would have been far better if we had gone through the process properly and had a two-day debate on the important matters in the Bill. Fracking is an important issue to many people, and we will no doubt debate it at considerable length today, but we should have had a two-day Report stage.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Public Lands
Joan Lorraine Walley (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Minister clarify the situation in respect of ancient woodland? Will she also clarify the situation in respect of decisions by local planning authorities and whether, despite what she has just said, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to overturn those decisions?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Tom Greatrex (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist the House? The Minister seems to have suggested that an amendment is being made to the amendments before us. If that is the case, and what she has said about words being removed from the Bill is correct, will we have an opportunity to scrutinise that amendment?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Joan Lorraine Walley (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would like some clarification as to whether what we are going to be voting on will be an overall ban. Members on both sides of the House have tabled many amendments seeking to bring that about. When, in an hour’s time, we vote on these amendments, we will not know whether we can be confident that the Government are really doing as they say. I would be grateful if the Minister, if not instantly, then in the next 45 minutes, could tell us what she is actually proposing.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Helen Mary Jones (Labour, Centre-left): Earlier, the Minister seemed to ask the House to rely on an order and on a commitment by the industry, rather than on putting the matter into primary legislation. If she agrees with what is in new clause 6, what is her objection to having it in the Bill?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Other
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please rule on the Minister’s view, because she seems to be confusing the Bill Committee with an Order in Council committee, which lasts a mere 90 minutes?
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-01-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Peter Miller (Labour, Centre-left): There is a lot of frustration in the debate, Mr Speaker. In Committee, the Government made an extraordinary statement that there were some issues around baseline monitoring that the Minister regards as commercial-in-confidence. That is why I have tabled the amendment. Would it not be helpful if the Minister answered that point now, while she is dealing with that measure, rather than simply moving on?