← Back to House of Commons Debates
Health and Care Bill - Schedule 14 - Minor and Consequential Amendments
16 November 2022
Lead MP
Thomas Tugendhat
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 36
At a Glance
Thomas Tugendhat raised concerns about health and care bill - schedule 14 - minor and consequential amendments in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The purpose of this amendment is to make minor and consequential changes necessary for clarity and consistency across related legislation. These amendments ensure that all health and care provisions are aligned with recent policy developments and best practices in healthcare delivery.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Mr Chris Bryant intervened briefly to support the introduction of new clauses, suggesting additional measures should be considered.
Kevan Jones
Lab
UK Parliament Constituency
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
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.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Warmly congratulated the Minister on his appointment and expressed concern about potential anomalies in applying the secondary tier to countries with fluctuating diplomatic relations.
Maria Eagle
Lab
Liverpool Garston
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.
Holly Lynch
Labour Co-op
Wansbeck
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.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
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.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
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.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
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.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
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.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
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.
Dan Jarvis
Lab
Barnsley North
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.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
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.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
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.
Ben Everitt
Con
Gosport
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
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.
Wirral West
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.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
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.
Hayes and Harlington
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.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
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.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Asked when the Government would publish the tier 1 visa report, highlighting delays in providing information.
Kevan Jones
Lab
Durham
Argued that national security concerns should not prevent a public interest defence and suggested leaving it to the courts may be insufficient.
Mary Robinson
Con
Bath
Suggested an office for whistleblowers as a potential route for exposing wrongdoing, showing support for addressing concerns raised about the public interest defence.
Holly Lynch
Lab
Halifax
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.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
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.
Robin Walker
Con
Worcester
Thanks colleagues and staff for their work in organising Education Committee elections, paying tribute to candidates.
Iain Stewart
Con
Milton Keynes South
Congratulates the new Chair of the Transport Select Committee and acknowledges the importance of scrutinising transport issues affecting constituents.
Rosie Winterton
Independent Labour Party
Rotherham
Welcomes the new Chairs of the Education Committee and Transport Committee, congratulating them on their roles in scrutinising Departments.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
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.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Supports Stella Creasy's concerns about the handling of the case involving a refugee child assault by someone who absconded.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Offers assurance that both Immigration and Policing Ministers will look into the issue raised concerning the assault of a young refugee child in Walthamstow.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.