Health and Care Bill - Schedule 14 - Minor and Consequential Amendments

The proposed amendments under Schedule 14 aim to streamline administrative processes within health and care organisations, ensuring that all regulations are up-to-date with current best practices. These changes will improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr Chris Bryant intervened briefly to support the introduction of new clauses, suggesting additional measures should be considered.

Questioned whether the Bill has been properly scrutinised and raised concerns about the foreign influence registration scheme, which he believed had not fulfilled its purpose despite being long discussed. He also intervened to ask for clarity on the primary and secondary tiers of the scheme.

Acknowledged that the foreign influence registration scheme is long overdue but expressed concern about confusion regarding the primary and secondary tiers. Suggested writing to the Intelligence and Security Committee for further clarification.

Suggested that once someone registers, they should be required to declare their foreign influence activities to any Minister, MP or Member of the House of Lords, rather than expecting people to know where to look for such information.

Questioned why harmful activity outside political influencing is only registered if it involves a foreign power listed in secondary legislation, suggesting that such activities should be prohibited regardless of country affiliation.

Warmly congratulated the Minister on his appointment and expressed concern about potential anomalies in applying the secondary tier to countries with fluctuating diplomatic relations.

Argued that the complex way the Government has set out the scheme, requiring designation by secondary legislation, would be diplomatically difficult and impractical in use. She also noted a lack of scrutiny from this Chamber or Committees.

Ms Lynch opposes clause 27 and supports amendment 14. She raises concerns about the lack of proper oversight, the removal of ministerial approval, and the absence of safeguards such as those in section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act. She also emphasises the need for an independent reviewer to assess the efficacy and proportionality of new powers.

Mr Hayes supports clause 13 and suggests that it should go further in terms of expanding provisions related to reckless behaviour. He believes the bill should be warmly welcomed and strengthened.

Mr Jones agrees with Ms Lynch's perspective on clause 27, noting that restricting legal aid for terrorism-related cases could logically apply to other serious crimes such as rape and murder.

Davis opposes clause 27, which he believes would further loosen legal restrictions on the activities of UK intelligence agencies. He argues that the vague language in clause 27 could lead to more cases where British officials assist or encourage criminal acts overseas with impunity. Davis uses historical examples and emphasises the importance of learning from past mistakes to prevent future abuses.

Carmichael briefly intervenes to note that we only know about specific cases of rendition and torture due to coincidental discoveries, such as papers left unattended after the fall of Gaddafi. This underscores the difficulty in fully understanding the extent of past complicity without further transparency.

Raises concerns about the breadth of 'interests of the United Kingdom', suggesting it is too broad and could be manipulated. He supports specific amendments to protect journalists, whistleblowers, and trafficking victims from being criminalised under the Bill. Expresses dissatisfaction with the lack of time for scrutiny and consultation on proposed amendments.

The MP opposes clause 27, which he believes provides overly broad protection for Ministers and senior officials involved in overseas activities that may be unlawful. He argues the existing Intelligence Services Act already offers adequate protections to personnel involved in national security duties. He fears clause 27 would shield government figures from scrutiny and undermine human rights standards.

The MP intervened briefly to correct the timing of speeches, ensuring the Minister had ample time for his response.

Amendment 14 seeks to remove clause 27, which I believe does not offer additional protection compared to the current section 50 defence in the Serious Crime Act 2007. The concept of reasonableness is well-understood by courts and offers broader legal certainty than 'acting in the proper exercise of a function.' Further, amendments 8 to 12 concerning damages reduction for individuals with terrorism-related convictions require clarity on what constitutes 'appropriate' reductions under clause 58(3). Lastly, amendment 38, which would restrict civil legal aid for those previously convicted of terrorism offences, needs thorough discussion due to its significant shift in the principles applicable to legal aid.

Criticises the inadequacy of today’s proceedings for proper scrutiny of the Bill. Expresses concern over clauses 27, 79 to 83 which do not provide protection for those who expose wrongdoing and risks offering protection to individuals acting outside British standards despite Government policy and law.

Supports the Bill, arguing it is necessary to update espionage legislation in light of state-based threats such as Russia and China. Highlights clauses 13, 20 and 21 which create new offences against state-based sabotage and improve prevention and investigation measures.

Supports the Bill while criticising part 3 as a 'complete mess'. Highlights the need to tackle political interference by hostile states, particularly through bots and trolls online, and seeks amendments to establish declarations for MPs working for foreign powers.

Supports the bill but raises concerns about the legal services exemption, suggesting it may be too broad. Questions the lack of an academic exemption which could impact UK R&D competitiveness.

Critiques the complexity and incompleteness of the foreign influence registration scheme, suggesting it is more complex than US or Australian schemes but does not go far enough. Questions why covert intelligence operations are only registered if undertaken by named countries in secondary legislation.

Raises concerns about the potential for a culture of unaccountability similar to past practices that led to torture of UK citizens. Supports amendment 14 to maintain accountability. Also supports amendment 3 for public interest protection for journalists, whistleblowers and investigative journalism.

Expressed concern about the Bill's provisions, arguing they are drawn too widely and may interfere with human rights. Highlighted the need for a public interest defence in the context of whistleblowing.

Defended the Bill's provisions, stating they are necessary to address evolving technological and security threats. Emphasised the importance of limiting judicial discretion in awarding damages for terrorism-related cases.

Asked when the Government would publish the tier 1 visa report, highlighting delays in providing information.

Argued that national security concerns should not prevent a public interest defence and suggested leaving it to the courts may be insufficient.

Suggested an office for whistleblowers as a potential route for exposing wrongdoing, showing support for addressing concerns raised about the public interest defence.

Supports the Bill, stating that it is essential for national security and the defence of our democracy. Acknowledges the work done by intelligence and security agencies but remains concerned about clause 27.

Supports the Bill with reservations, acknowledging that it is necessary but calls for more time for engagement on outstanding issues. Highlights concerns about criminalising people not intended by the bill.

Thanks colleagues and staff for their work in organising Education Committee elections, paying tribute to candidates.

Congratulates the new Chair of the Transport Select Committee and acknowledges the importance of scrutinising transport issues affecting constituents.

Welcomes the new Chairs of the Education Committee and Transport Committee, congratulating them on their roles in scrutinising Departments.

Raises concerns about a serious assault of a young refugee child in her constituency by someone who absconded, seeking an update from the Home Office.

Supports Stella Creasy's concerns about the handling of the case involving a refugee child assault by someone who absconded.

Offers assurance that both Immigration and Policing Ministers will look into the issue raised concerning the assault of a young refugee child in Walthamstow.