Alex Davies-Jones (25824)
This page contains possible times in debates that Alex Davies-Jones may have disclosed an interest.
This match is loose and is likely to include false positives.
2023-09-04: Match score 64%
A constituent battling multiple sclerosis recently came to one of my surgeries after his PIP application was refused without ever receiving a face-to-face assessment—and he did request one. The automated letter dismissing his appeal used incredibly insulting and derogatory language. Without ever meeting him, the Minister’s Department declared my constituent fit and able despite this clearly not being the case. I am doing whatever I can to support my constituent, but surely the Minister will agree that PIP applicants deserve face-to-face assessments rather than this dismissive, humiliating letter language.
2024-04-30: Match score 64%
I am afraid that these frustrations are not new. Many of them are not dissimilar to those that my colleagues and I raised during the Committee stage of the Online Safety Act 2023. Let us be clear: while big companies have a significant impact on our economy, that power should never be extended to our legislative process. The process of forming and scrutinising legislation should be entirely independent from any private company interest. Parliamentarians and our Government should not be influenced in any circumstances, because we as public servants should be here for our people—our constituents— rather than being here to promote and advance the interests of big companies and big tech. What is more important to the Government: appeasing big companies or acting for the good of the people they are supposed to represent? If it is not appeasing big companies, why will they not revert to ensuring that the CMA’s interventions are appropriate rather than proportionate?
2023-12-14: Match score 63%
I know that the Leader of the House takes a personal interest in online safety, so will she be willing to meet me to discuss a way forward to close the gaps and tackle this issue?
2024-03-26: Match score 63%
The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and which the Government now support, is a great opportunity to tackle pernicious lawsuits that seek to silence journalists, campaigners and even sexual assault survivors, but two key deficiencies—the overly subjective test and the narrow definition of public interest—mean that anti-SLAPP campaigners tell me that they simply cannot support the Bill in its current form. Ahead of the important Committee stage, will the Lord Chancellor commit to looking at the amendment suggested by the News Media Association and meet me to address its concerns so that the Bill becomes fit for purpose?
2023-12-05: Match score 62%
Later in my speech, I will outline exactly what the situation is, but I will first comment on the contributions made by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). As always, she is a very vocal champion; she reminded us all not to be bystanders. Just last week I attended really important bystander training organised by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I implore all right hon. and hon. Members across the House to take part in that training. There was an interesting exchange between my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East about exactly what society should do—how can we intervene? How can people feel empowered to do more?