All 2 Debates between Carol Monaghan and Caroline Dinenage

PACE Trial: People with ME

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Caroline Dinenage
Tuesday 20th February 2018

(6 years, 2 months ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Caroline Dinenage Portrait Caroline Dinenage
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I have already set out, sometimes it can take a really long time for this to be diagnosed. People have to keep going backwards and forwards to GPs and others with their symptoms. Many other potential conditions have to be discounted before it can be fully diagnosed, which often leaves people feeling that their symptoms are not being taken seriously or they are being dismissed. Obviously, that is massively concerning, which is why, as we have already said, it is important that patients are listened to and that clinical professionals are well-equipped to be able to recognise the symptoms and identify them.

As I said, the data has been examined more widely. Critics, including some clinical academics, have suggested that it shows CBT and GET are not as effective as the trial results suggested. In turn, the trial authors have defended their work. They have responded to criticisms in medical journals and the wider medical printed press. I know the hon. Member for Glasgow North West raised one such criticism at the oral evidence session of the Science and Technology Committee in January, concerning possible conflicts of interest of the PACE trial authors. On that point, in line with normal practice, all such conflicts were published with the trial protocol as well as the results. If she has evidence to the contrary, I would be very happy to discuss that with her afterwards.

Carol Monaghan Portrait Carol Monaghan
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for that. However, they were not disclosed to the PACE participants.

Caroline Dinenage Portrait Caroline Dinenage
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is very important that the hon. Lady has raised that point, and I am sure it will be taken into consideration.

Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling

Debate between Carol Monaghan and Caroline Dinenage
Wednesday 15th March 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Caroline Dinenage Portrait Caroline Dinenage
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady is right: hate crime, whatever form it takes, should never be tolerated. It should be punished with the full force of the law, and the Government take that very seriously.

Carol Monaghan Portrait Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

I am heartened to hear the Minister’s comments and her very clear guidelines, but I am still concerned that this ruling may allow intolerant employers to ban symbols such as the hijab or even a cross on the forehead. How are the Government planning to monitor employers, and how will they make it possible for employees to report problems without fear of repercussions?

Caroline Dinenage Portrait Caroline Dinenage
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is an important question. We are very clear that employers do not need to change legitimate policies on dress codes in the workplace, but it is vital that employers and employees understand what the law allows. Employers cannot act unscrupulously in some mistaken interpretation of the law, and employees must not feel that they cannot report any incidents of this kind.