On foreign influences, why does the Bill cover someone who “intends” to have a negative impact? Elsewhere, the Bill talks about behaviour that is “reckless” and individuals who “ought reasonably to know” that their behaviour would be damaging. Can I ask why there is this difference between the two? Surely it would strengthen this part of the Bill to have the “reckless” and the “ought reasonably to know” behaviour test.
National Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beamish
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 June 2022.
It occurred during Debate on bills on National Security Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
715 c579 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-08 09:21:46 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-06-06/22060614000055
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-06-06/22060614000055
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-06-06/22060614000055