Health and Care Bill - Schedule - Minor and Consequential Amendments

The amendments are crucial for ensuring that all aspects of healthcare legislation work together seamlessly. They will help to eliminate bureaucratic hurdles and enhance service delivery.

Mr Leigh highlighted concerns from pro-life students who feel unable to speak openly in university seminars and lectures, emphasising the importance of their right to be heard.

Ms Kearns asked the Minister to clarify that the Secretary of State retains the ability to direct further inquiry by the OfS if there are concerns about suitable investigation.

Mr Zeichner questioned the potential extra bureaucracy for commercial partnerships and sought clarity on the intent behind new clause 2, expressing concern about pre-emptive reporting duties.

Ms Johnson called for a cultural change to accept diverse views on university campuses and highlighted the need for security measures, citing an instance where the Secretary of State faced harassment.

Ms Kearns sought confirmation that Confucius Institutes would fall within the Act's remit, given concerns about freedom of speech on British campuses.

Mr Duncan Smith expressed concern over Confucius Institutes' involvement in spying on Chinese students and urged the Government to view them as a security threat.

Mr Lewis raised concerns about a £155 million gift from a Vietnamese company's chairwoman to Linacre College, Oxford, questioning the implications for freedom of speech.

Emphasises that new clause 4 is necessary due to recent controversial appointments, such as Lord Wharton’s role in the Office for Students. He highlights conflicts of interest and politicisation, including donations made by appointees to political parties. The amendment aims to prevent further instances of partiality.

Intervenes to support the proposal, citing recent failures in public appointments and urging the Minister to acknowledge the importance of checks and balances as outlined in new clause 4.

Intervenes to note that pre-appointment scrutiny is common practice for other roles, such as the chair of Ofsted, questioning why similar standards are not applied here.

Intervenes to clarify a point made by Professor Ahmed regarding impartiality in the work of the director, stressing that Ahmed supports the legislation despite highlighting the need for impartiality.

Argues for new clause 4 to prioritise independence, accountability, and authority in appointments. Critiques the Government’s appointment process as overtly partial, citing examples of surprise appointments by Prime Minister's preference.

Asks whether previous political association disqualifies someone from impartiality in future appointments, questioning the shadow minister’s suggestion.

Supports the need for competency-based appointment processes rather than political popularity. Highlights the importance of appointing someone with previous understanding of legislation and law.

Questions whether Matt Western can be impartial if he is a member or supporter of any political party, suggesting it disqualifies him from the role.

Intervened with 'You were not even there', but no detailed argument provided.

Agrees that the legislation is unnecessary and divisive, citing Office for Students data showing only six cancellations out of 10,000 events with external speakers.

Mr. Duncan Smith raises concerns about funding from countries opposing free speech, particularly focusing on Confucius Institutes. He argues for government intervention to stop organisations whose purpose is not educational but rather political control. He provides specific examples of universities receiving funds with ulterior motives and stresses the importance of transparency and legislative action against undue influence.

[INTERVENTION]: Ms. Phillips supports Mr. Duncan Smith's points, expressing similar concerns in her constituency about the safety of Hong Kong students and the need for a secure educational environment.

[INTERVENTION]: Mr. Loughton agrees with Mr. Duncan Smith, noting that Chinese students contribute significantly to university revenues but also face undue influence from the Chinese Government through Confucius Institutes.

Argues that universities should not use NDAs to silence victims of sexual violence, abuse or harassment. Provides examples of students being forced into signing NDAs which prevent them from reporting their experiences publicly or even discussing them with family and friends. Cites statistics indicating over 300 NDAs used by universities in student complaints between 2016-2020. Emphasises the need for legislation to address this issue.

Asked if victims of campus violence could be forced into signing NDAs, questioning whether they had gone to the police. Implied that individuals should not be compelled to enter into such agreements.

Encouraged Jess Phillips to name institutions imposing NDAs, suggesting this would inform student choices about where to study. Argued that the debate should focus on freedom of choice for students.

Emphasised that NDAs are not limited to students but also affect staff, arguing existing employment law is insufficient. Suggested the amendment could be a first step towards banning NDAs altogether.

Expressed concern about how this Bill interacts with existing equality legislation. Highlighted issues around the impartiality of decision-making processes appointed by political figures, as outlined in new clause 4.

Mr Julian Lewis raises concerns about diminishing free speech in universities and questions whether interventions taken show that restrictions on free speech have spread further than intended. He supports the need for intellectual challenge despite emotional discomfort.

Intervenes to support Julian Lewis, agreeing that physical safety is different from emotional or intellectual safety and emphasises the importance of universities as places for challenging ideas.

Argues that while free speech is important, there must be a line drawn when it comes to offensive or hurtful content. She questions who should make decisions about where this line is drawn.

Mr John Hayes criticises the current trend of over-caution in reading literature due to perceived emotional danger. He praises the Government for listening to arguments during Committee stage and suggests further improvements to ensure all staff are covered by free speech protections.

Mr Jesse Norman proposes a new clause for transparency in university donations, aiming to address financial pressures on institutions. He appreciates Government acceptance of his proposed measures and emphasises the importance of freedom of speech within universities.

She argues that Confucius institutes are an instrument of the Chinese Government's propaganda wing, undermining academic freedom and national security. She supports transparency in financial disclosures for universities and offers alternatives to Confucius institutes, such as courses from Taiwan experts.

[INTERVENTION] He congratulates the hon. Friend on her new clause and agrees that there should be a direct power for the Secretary of State to address security threats posed by Confucius institutes without necessarily going through the Office for Students.

Mr. Shannon supports the Bill and specifically mentions its importance for pro-life students, stating that freedom of speech must be upheld for all students.

Mr. Hayes encourages Ms. Cates to press the Government for further provisions in the Bill to ensure that freedom is maintained, emphasising the need for a clear signal to universities about the importance of upholding free speech.

Ms. Phillips challenges the notion that students are incapable of handling challenging environments and questions whether university authorities need to be more involved in regulating freedom of speech.

Intervened, raising concerns about faulty policies universities are drawing up for dealing with free speech complaints based on skewed advice from individuals and organisations. Suggested that the Minister should look into these policies, their sources, and the advice received by universities.

Emphasised the need for an independent director with no political affiliations to ensure confidence in advice provided on free speech and academic freedom. Raised concerns about potential suspicion of political linkages and proposed involvement of a Select Committee in confirming appointments.

Urged the Minister to reconsider the appointments process for the director, suggesting that it should involve an independent panel and confirmatory vote by a Select Committee to ensure the confidence of universities.

Acknowledges contributions and emphasises the need for robust action against threats to academic freedom. Raises concerns about high rates of self-censorship among academics, death threats, and violence directed at those expressing controversial views. Criticises Opposition's stance as ignoring evidence of a free speech crisis, urging them to support the Bill.

Critiques the Government for prioritising divisive legislation over tackling cost-of-living issues. Cites statistics showing student financial hardship, with many struggling to afford basic necessities. Argues that universities should adopt best practices off the shelf rather than rely on top-down legislation. Expresses concerns about potential legal challenges and costs associated with the Bill.

Encourages Labour to reconsider their stance, arguing that freedom of speech is essential in academic discourse. Cites evidence from Committee sessions suggesting universities have failed to protect free speech adequately. Emphasises the need for legislation to safeguard lawful free speech and prevent self-censorship among academics.

The speaker supports the Bill, citing its importance in protecting Christians and other religious groups from restrictions on freedom of speech. He mentions examples of Christian conferences not being renewed at universities and young Christian unions being unfairly targeted as hate speech. The speaker appreciates that the Government has taken steps to ensure no loopholes are left for those wishing to suppress others' rights to free speech. He also commends the amendments which remove limitations on academic freedom, allowing a teacher of mathematics to express beliefs about biology within ethical bounds.