argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has spoken for a number of minutes, but he has not answered the question. I asked what further action the Government will take to avert industrial action and the escalation planned for the 26th and 27th, and there was absolutely no response This is a worrying time for patients and the NHS, and it is nothing short of a disgrace that, yet again, the Health Secretary has failed to turn up. If this walkout goes ahead, it will be the first time ever that junior doctors have fully withdrawn their labour. Nobody wants that to happen, so let me focus my questions on how we might find a way through this very heated and deeply distressing dispute Yesterday, the Health Secretary was reported to have said that "the matter is closed." May I urge the Minister to think again? He should think about how it will look to patients if the Secretary of State spends the next four weeks sitting on his hands, instead of trying to avert this action. Was the Government’s former patient safety adviser, Don Berwick, not right to have called on Ministers to de-escalate the situation? How does describing the junior doctor element of the BMA as "radicalised", as the Minister did on Monday, help to de-escalate things? May I gently suggest to him that his tone and choice of words are making a resolution harder, not easier, to achieve The Minister is an intelligent man, and I know he will be talking to the same senior NHS leaders I talk to. Deep down, he knows that this contract has nothing to do with seven-day services and everything to do with setting a precedent to save money on the NHS pay bill—change the definition of unsociable hours in this contract and pave the way for changing it for nurses, porters and a whole host of other NHS staff. Am I wrong, Minister Finally, may I simply ask the Government to start listening to patients? The Patients Association has said: "The Government’s decision to impose contract terms on junior doctors is unacceptable…It is clear that the acrimonious dispute…is unnecessary and damaging." National Voices, which represents 160 health and care charities, said yesterday: "We are calling on government to drop the imposition of a new contract" The Government have 32 days to prevent a full walkout of junior doctors. The Secretary of State may think that the matter is closed; I say that that is arrogant and dangerous in the extreme. This is an awful game of brinkmanship and the Government must press the pause button before it is too late.
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Kevin John Barron (Labour, Centre-left): It is clear that the Government are in a very difficult position, hence the Minister’s attack on Opposition Front and Back Benchers. I have to say that, from my experience of nine years on the General Medical Council, I do not recognise the various descriptions of the doctors’ profession that the Government have given over the past few weeks, including as being radicalised. We all know that this dispute should and will be settled not by imposition but by negotiations around a table. It seems to me that instead of using, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, rhetoric that has fired this up, Ministers would do much better to react to what the BMA said yesterday, which is that it wants "to end this dispute through talks" Why do the Government not get on with it, keep us out of it and just do what people expect them to do?
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): Thanks to the Welsh Assembly, my constituents will not suffer the anxiety caused by the future strike. Does the Minister expect the public to support doctors who dedicate their lives to the health service, rather than the nasty party that opposed the set-up of the health service, and whose support for it has always been half-hearted and grudging?
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Dennis Edward Skinner (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is also on premium pay, and he would be on strike if other Ministers were getting more than him. Is he aware that nearly all patients who are in work and go to hospital to be treated by these doctors are also on premium pay at the weekend? Does he realise that the Government are not in a very strong position just about now? They have had to retreat on their Budget. Does he understand that in this world, where nearly everybody in a trade union gets premium payments on Saturday, the same should apply to those in hospital by the same amount? Then we should pay the nurses and all the rest of them an equivalent amount. That is the Minister’s problem—get weaving!
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister’s tone, language and approach today show how and why he has failed in these negotiations. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) could easily teach him how to negotiate and how to avert the strike. Will the Minister please explain how he proposes to have more junior doctors working at the weekends, without having fewer working during the week?
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Paula Michelle Sherriff (Labour, Centre-left): I plead with the Minister to respond to the comments from Jeremy Taylor, chief executive of National Voices, which represents 160 health and care charities and which has called on the Government to drop imposition and on both sides to get back around the negotiating table. In his words, if they do not, "the only people who will suffer are patients."
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has described those seeking to protect our national health service and their own work-life balance as being radicalised. Will he apologise for this insult to junior doctors and the English language and urgently seek a more consensual and inclusive resolution?
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): I worked for the NHS for 33 years, so I know that NHS staff do not take strike action lightly. The Government’s failure to negotiate has fuelled this crisis in our NHS. The BMA said in its statement yesterday that it wanted to end the dispute through talks. I implore the Minister to get back round that table for the sake of patients and every citizen of this country.
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action — House of Commons, 2016-03-24
Topic: Health
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): What an absolutely shambles of the Government’s own making! Will the Minister accept that in view of the language he is using today and the tone that the Government have struck—not just today, but throughout this week and before that—they have given the impression to junior doctors and the country that what they really seek is a fight and a confrontation rather than the resolution that the public deserve?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Defense
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have concerns about a written answer that I received last week from the Ministry of Defence. It stated that "the Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold a complete, centralised record of steel procurement for projects and equipment, either in terms of quantity or country of origin, over the past six years." Why on earth should we believe the Government’s promises on procurement when they do not even keep records in the Ministry of Defence, and what will the Secretary of State do about it?
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will be aware that money alone is not the issue. In the past four months alone, Brazil has recorded more than 4,000 cases of microcephaly—babies born with deformed small heads. The Minister will also be aware that the Olympic games will be in less than 200 days. More than 1 million tourists are expected to descend on Rio Does the Minister agree that research is a high priority? We urgently need proof of a causative link between the Zika infection and microcephaly, and then to know how the virus damages the brain of the growing foetus. Developing countries will need support for the mothers of the thousands of deformed babies to be able to take their family life forward. Does the Minister also agree that diagnostics, antiviral drugs and, above all, a Zika vaccine are essential?
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): It is predicted that 16,000 children will be affected by microcephaly this year in Latin America, so the world’s community is in a race against time with this horrible virus. Last week, the Chancellor announced funding of £500 million a year to the Ross Fund at Liverpool University to fight malaria. Compared with that, the announcement of £400,000 for Glasgow, which the Minister has just mentioned, pales into insignificance. Through him, may I urge the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to consider all resources to tackle the outbreak of this virus, for which there is no test, cure or vaccine? Any vaccine would require the application of careful moral and ethical standards to its testing on pregnant women, but it is necessary to save a generation of women and their children from disability and poverty.
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is right that the risk of an outbreak in the UK is low, but what steps have the Government taken to ensure that NHS staff can spot the signs and symptoms of the Zika virus? Working with his colleague, the public health Minister, will he keep under review the option of a public health education programme?
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Steve Rotheram (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister mentioned two excellent facilities in London and Glasgow, but forgot to mention the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which receives Gates money because of the expertise based in the facility. Will he ensure that there is greater collaboration between the different institutions within the UK, which have such great expertise, to ensure that we find a vaccine as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so?
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The ability of countries to cope with global infectious disease outbreaks, whether it be Zika, Ebola or HIV/AIDS, is often contingent on the strength, resilience and capacity of their national health systems—the core health systems in those countries. Will the Minister say a little about what DFID is doing to support health system strengthening in countries that are either directly affected by Zika or at risk of being affected by it in the near future?
Zika Virus — House of Commons, 2016-02-02
Topic: Health
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): It is incredibly difficult to control mosquito-borne diseases, but we do need a long-term public health plan. I pay tribute to the valuable work that DFID has done in tackling the malarial mosquito in sub-Saharan Africa. What role is the UK playing in helping to develop and research a vaccine for the Zika virus?
Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): These new clauses and amendments, which I support, relate to off-patent drugs. I think it would be useful for me briefly to set out the context in which they arise. The Off-patent Drugs Bill, a private Member’s Bill that I introduced—it was debated on Second Reading on 6 November—is a UK-wide Bill that would create a duty on the Government to make cheap drugs available when pharmaceutical companies had no incentive to do so. The problem, put simply, is that if a drug is shown to be useful for a new purpose after its original patent has expired, a pharmaceutical company has no financial incentive to sponsor that off-patent treatment through the processes normally used to license it and ensure its adoption on the NHS. Those off-patent or off-label treatments are certainly available at low cost. The issue is simply that although clinicians can of course prescribe them, they tend not to be prescribed consistently across the medical sector, or indeed geographically The Off-patent Drugs Bill ran out of time that day, but I think it is accurate to say that the Government supported its aims but not the mechanism it proposed. None the less, in recognising that there is a problem, and with a shared position on both sides of the House on the need to encourage greater consistency in off-label prescribing, a lot of work has since been done, and on a cross-party basis. I am proud that new clause 1 stands in the name of Members from no fewer than eight political parties. The concept of encouraging greater use of off-patent drugs, and indeed my Bill, have significant support across the House and outside. I pay tribute to Jonathan Evans, the former Member for Cardiff North, who first introduced such a Bill in 2014. His successor, the current Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams), has also supported my Bill.
Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work he has done on the Off-patent Drugs Bill. Given the consensus across the House, does he agree that now is the time for a firm commitment from the Government on that Bill?
Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on navigating the Bill to this stage. His pursuit of legislation in this area has sparked an important debate on the Floor of the House about how we can improve access to innovative treatments I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and I support the broad thrust of all of them. I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for her speech and the contribution that she has made—she spoke with great knowledge and passion. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has tabled new clauses on the important issue of off-patent drugs and off-label uses, which he has championed. I was sorry to see his Bill fall on Second Reading in November and hope we can make more progress with the Government today Improving access to off-patent drugs so that people, no matter where they live or by whom they are being treated, are offered well-evidenced treatments that might not be routinely commissioned, is an ambition shared by many in the House, regardless of political persuasion. The Minister shares those objectives. Over the past few weeks and months, he has worked with key stakeholders and discussed the issue with them I express my support for new clause 1, which requires the Department of Health to produce an action plan for developing a pathway for off-patent, repurposed drugs, where strong evidence of their effectiveness in a new indication exists, with the aim of securing their routine use in such an indication. I hope the Minister can commit to such an action plan and put forward a clear timetable for progress, which is long overdue. I also hope he can offer the House reassurance on the proposals in new clauses 2 to 6, all of which have merit and deserve proper consideration by the Government.
Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to Members across the House for their contributions and to the Life Sciences Minister for his clear response to the six probing new clauses. I am pleased to hear that the Government will accept amendments 10 and 13. As I said in my opening speech, having off-label treatments in the Bill and the database will make a significant difference and help move things forward. I was also pleased with his reassurance to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that we will continue to review the system, as, I hope, the number of off-label treatments and prescriptions increases In view of the Minister’s commitments and acceptance of amendments 10 and 13, I do not propose to press new clauses 1, 2 and 3. New clauses 4, 5 and 6 are in the names of the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 Access to innovative medical treatments Amendment made: 10, page 1, line 3, after "treatments" insert "(including treatments consisting in the off-label use of medicines or the use of unlicensed medicines)"—(Chris Heaton-Harris.).
Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, in clause 2, leave out from beginning to "involves" in line 19 and insert "In this section, "innovative medical treatment" means medical treatment for a condition that" Amendment 2, page 2, line 26, leave out clause 3 Amendment 3, page 3, line 19, leave out clause 4 Amendment 4, page 3, line 40, in clause 5, leave out "this Act" and insert "section 2" Amendment 12, page 3, line 42, in clause 5, leave out paragraph (b) Amendment 5, page 4, line 1, in clause 5, leave out "this Act" and insert "section 2" Amendment 6, page 4, line 3, in clause 5, leave out "this Act" and insert "section 2" Amendment 14, page 4, line 8, in clause 6, leave out "Sections 1 to 5" and insert "Sections 1, 2 and 5"
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): This group of amendments, and in particular those which leave out clauses 3 and 4, are very welcome and have my full support. I appreciate that making such extensive changes to a Bill at this stage is not easy, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has been true to his word, and has rightly decided not to proceed with these clauses in the face of strong opposition Members who were present on Second Reading will have heard some of the grave concerns expressed by medical royal colleges, research charities and patient groups. I think it would be fair to the hon. Gentleman if I say that those concerns, which I shared, were more about the unintended consequences of clauses 3 and 4, than about the stated aim of his Bill. However, the effect of these amendments, if they are passed, is that the sole purpose of this Bill is now to give the Secretary of State the power to establish a database. The hon. Gentleman knows that on Second Reading, along with many other hon. Members, I said that I believed the Secretary of State already had this power The Association of Medical Research Charities has said that primary legislation is not required to set up a database of innovative medical treatments. According to the House of Commons Library, section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 gives the Secretary of State power to direct the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish a system for the collection or analysis of information. Indeed, in Committee, the Minister signalled his intention to introduce such a database, regardless of whether this Bill becomes law. He said at that time: "If the Bill does not, for whatever reason, reach the statute book, I would happily proceed towards establishing such a database".––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22.] With that in mind, I have to question whether what is left of this Bill is needed at all There also seems to be some confusion, even in the Minister’s own mind, about the purpose of the Bill. The Daily Telegraph claimed on 22 January that the Minister had told it that changes in the reworked Bill could help to cut the length of time it took to bring a new drug to market by a third, from 15 years to 10 years. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) received a written answer to a question on this very subject on 28 January, the Minister’s reply was: "The Bill is not specifically designed to reduce the length of time it takes to bring a new drug to market". I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the apparent contradiction in those remarks. Having said all that, I support all the amendments in this group. Indeed, they represent a positive step forward in terms of the overall Bill.
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): I should like to state for the record that it has never been the Opposition’s desire to play political games with this Bill. We have always been concerned about what is in the best interest of patients, and I would like to make that point clear to the Minister and place it on record.
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 8, page 2, line 20, at end insert— "(b) the General Medical Council, (c) the British Medical Association, (d) the Association of Medical Research Charities, (e) the Royal Colleges, (f) the Academy of Medical Sciences, (g) the Medical Research Council, (h) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, (i) the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency, and (j) any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult."
Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-01-29
Topic: Health
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 9, page 2, line 20, at end insert— "(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the regulations have the approval in principle of— (a) the HSCIC, (b) the General Medical Council, (c) the British Medical Association, (d) the Association of Medical Research Charities, (e) the Royal Colleges, (f) the Academy of Medical Sciences, (g) the Medical Research Council, (h) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, (i) the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency, and (j) any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate." Amendment 15, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— "( ) References in section 2 to medical treatment include references to treatment carried out for the purposes of medical research (but nothing in section 2 is to be read as affecting the regulation of medical research)." This amendment makes it clear that the database for which clause 2 provides may contain information about treatments carried out for the purposes of medical research (including, for example, in the context of a clinical trial).