Telecommunications Legislation: Human Rights

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The Government share my noble friend’s abhorrence at this kind of abuse of human rights. We have led the way with our modern slavery legislation. Some 16,000 companies a year now make modern slavery statements, but we are also aware, as is my noble friend, of how hard it is to track abuses through the supply chain. We have set out a clear modern slavery assessment tool and regularly direct companies to the overseas business risk guidance when they consider operating in areas where human rights abuses are alleged.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]]

My Lords, given the absolute denial by the Chinese ambassador on Sunday of the fact that millions of members of the Chinese minorities are being deprived of their fundamental human rights in Xinjiang, can the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will seek evidence of compliance with international human rights law by China before Huawei is afforded any further opportunities for trade with the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Barran]

The decisions on Huawei’s place in the 5G network were driven by security considerations. As a Government, we clearly have multiple responsibilities, of which national security comes highest. The advice we received from the National Cyber Security Centre changed and therefore our policy has changed.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I had intended to make a substantive contribution on human rights, the much broader foreign policy and trade implications, and on where this country stands, but in light of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the wind-up of the Minister, I see no point making that speech this evening. Therefore, I will rest for another day.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the cross-party amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton. I do so as a lawyer who held the Jean Monnet Chair in European Law at the University of Ulster and who has been involved in work on human rights throughout my professional life. Monnet once said that

“beyond differences and geographical boundaries there lies a common interest.”

Humanity’s common interest in fundamental human rights is at the heart of this amendment, flowing as it does from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble to that declaration proclaims

“the inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world … disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”.

That was 72 years ago. It was the outrage at the crimes of the Nazis that led to the promulgation of the 30 articles, the first being the right to life itself.

The declaration states:

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms … No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment … No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile … The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”


There is a right to believe, not to believe or to change belief. There are employment rights, including the right to just and favourable conditions at work.