Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Northover

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 102A and 102B. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said and look forward to the results of his eagle eye, which I am sure will come to your Lordships’ House over the next months and years. Like him, I also thank the Minister for her stewardship of the Bill. It has taken so long that I recollect that on our first day in Committee, the noble Baroness herself had laid many amendments which she seemed to have to refute later on in proceedings on the Bill. At least she knows how it feels to have a government Minister reject so many well-argued points.

I thank the Minister also for what she said about the Government’s view of the appalling atrocities being committed in China, with the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China. The victims at the moment are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners, but most recent evidence suggests that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale, particularly in Xinjiang.

My amendment was supported by noble Lords all around the House on Report. Essentially, it gave a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract if they have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities. The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in, or developed off the back of, the forced harvesting trade entering the UK. When it went back to the Commons, the Government took the provision out in Committee. This was challenged on Commons Report, led by my honourable friend Marie Rimmer. Despite support from MPs of all parties, that was not successful, so I am asking noble Lords to send it back to the Commons for further consideration.

My reasons, briefly, are threefold. First, the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China, specifically in Xinjiang, are becoming ever clearer and more horrific. Secondly, I believe that Ministers were wrong in dismissing the need for the amendment, both in the response they gave in the Commons to my colleagues and in the comments that the Minister has given tonight. Thirdly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the context in which this is being debated is, frankly, that government policy towards China is completely inadequate to the threats that country poses to the interests of the United Kingdom.

On the scale of the atrocities, I can do no better than to quote what Sir Iain Duncan Smith said on Report in the Commons. He referred to the 2022 UN report, which found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. He said:

“They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world,”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/23; col. 205.]


whether we use the term “genocide” or not.

What the Minister has essentially said is first that we do not need to do this because there is a discretionary power in the Bill already, and secondly that there is no evidence, as far as the Government are aware, that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. On the first point, I believe that there is considerable merit in making explicit reference in the Bill to this matter, so that public authorities are in no doubt whatever that they can use a discretionary power to deal with companies that may be dealing, maybe inadvertently, in this abhorrent trade. Secondly, I think there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be supplying immunosuppressant drugs to hospitals that have been reported to remove organs from prisoners of conscience.

As I have said, we cannot consider these matters without seeing them in the context of UK policy towards China. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, nor to requote. We have now had our Lordships’ Select Committee, then chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report only last month on the Indo-Pacific tilt policy. They all draw attention to the Government’s woefully inadequate response to the threat that China presents and to the very ambiguity there is in policy. We can see the obvious tension between our security, on one hand, and the willingness and wish of the Government to trade with China and to encourage Chinese investment, but I am afraid that, in trying to get a balance, we have ended up with a Government with a wholly inadequate and incoherent policy.

My amendment is very modest. All it does is give the decision-maker discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if it

“or a connected person has been, or is, involved in … forced organ harvesting, or … dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting”.

It would be the first piece of UK legislation to include and define forced organ harvesting. It would be a huge step in preventing UK complicity in forced organ harvesting, and I urge the House to support it.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I was a signatory to earlier amendments and we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, make a very cogent case for the Commons to think again about his amendments. I will be very brief, given the hour. The noble Lord built on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined just now, and his case is backed by international investigation and evidence. Thus, for example, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not an institution that would say this lightly, concludes in relation to Xinjiang:

“Allegations of … torture … including forced medical treatment … are credible”.


The Minister in the Commons and now the Minister in the Lords have argued that current legislation covers the problem identified in this amendment, but noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, make a very persuasive case that this is not so. My noble friend Lord Fox will comment further shortly but, if the noble Lord decides to put this to a vote, from these Benches we will support him.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Northover

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour for my two amendments to be grouped with that in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra. As the noble Lord has discussed the supply chain, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, although I am not speaking on its behalf when it comes to my strongly supporting his amendment, which sets the context for my own two amendments.

We debated this issue very fully in Committee. I think that the House believes strongly that the commercial exploitation of body parts in all forms is unethical and unsavoury. When it is combined with mass killing by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response to credible information that Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians had been killed for their organs in China.

Currently, human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, where we have a very ethical approach, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money will pay for anti-rejection medication regardless of where the organ was sourced or whether it was forcibly harvested from prisoners of conscience.

I shall not repeat all that I said in Committee, but I have had a helpful meeting with Ministers for which I thank them. In that meeting and in subsequent meetings, the Minister was concerned that my amendment in relation to organ tourism would penalise vulnerable people seeking to pay for a transplant. I have thought about that carefully, but, in the end—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, expressed so well why this Bill is highly appropriate for these kind of amendments—we have to draw a line in the sand. That is particularly so today, in the horrific circumstances that we meet. We have to draw a line in the sand and send out a powerful message globally that we will not support these abhorrent practices in any way.

My Amendment 162 comes later, but I shall seek the opinion of the House at that time.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has very effectively introduced the amendments to which I have put my name, Amendments 162 and 173, and I wish briefly to express the support of these Benches for those. We also support Amendment 108, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has put her name.

As noble Lords know, we have been inching forward on these matters with Ministers, and I welcome that forward movement. I note, however, recent warnings from Ministers that, for example, there are “opportunity costs” in implementing these measures, as ensuring that proper standards are enforced requires effort and potential cost. I understand that. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to become complicit in any way in organ tourism where the source of those organs is forced or where selling the organ is to address appalling poverty.

Some say that this trade may be declining in and from China. If so, that is welcome and might reflect international pressure, not least on the Chinese medical profession. It is not clear that those involved in the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal would agree that it is declining.

Even if we were to accept that, and Ministers seemed to indicate that they thought that might be the case, we are also hearing now of an increase in the selling of organs in Afghanistan because of the dire situation there. There have been recent reports of journalists seeing the scars of those who have sold their kidneys. That is a terrible indictment of our walking away from Afghanistan and failing to address the appalling conditions that we have left there. How can we regard such potential “donors” as being anything other than the most extremely vulnerable? How can you put that up against the vulnerable who may need to have donations?

As for the bodies exhibitions, we have discussed before how distasteful they are—but then we realise with horror exactly where these bodies seem to have been sourced: among other things, from Chinese prisons. We should never have condoned that, turning a blind eye. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who argued in Committee that they should simply be banned. There is no reason whatever to agree to their continuation.

I now hear that the Government may argue—and this is incredibly familiar—that these amendments are flawed. As the noble Earl knows, often Ministers are given briefs that say, “This is a flawed amendment, so turn it back.” I am very familiar with them. In those circumstances, the best thing is for your Lordships to pass these amendments, because Ministers know, or should know, that the essence is extremely clear, and with government lawyers we can work out how best to sort out any unintended consequences. I hope that I do not hear anything about these amendments being flawed—and I say that to the Box. I therefore commend them to your Lordships.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Northover

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I do not slow us down again after the provocative words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, but I am going to talk about access to dental treatment and fluoridation. Although the House is somewhat empty, I expect that as the debate goes on it might fill up a little.

We had an Oral Question this afternoon about dentistry, and I do not want to repeat everything that was said then. I have enjoyed debating dental issues with the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for many years. He will know that there is widespread concern about the lack of access to dentistry. At Oral Questions the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to the £50 million that had been provided, but I am afraid that the 350,000 treatments that it will pay for are a drop in the ocean compared with the 38 million patient treatments that have been lost as a result of the pandemic.

Many people are finding accessing dentistry almost impossible at the moment. The Minister referred earlier today to people being able to use the access centres, and to the 111 service, but I am afraid that it has broken down in many parts of the country. One is led to the conclusion that dentistry issues are not a priority. Many adults and children are suffering in pain because of their lack of access. The Government must focus on this and develop a proper strategy. I pay tribute to Healthwatch for its work in this area—it has had a lot of interest from members of the public—and to the BDA for its briefings.

Treatment is one thing, prevention is another. Here, I must remind the Committee of my presidency of the British Fluoridation Society. This brings me to effective preventive measures. I welcome Clauses 147 and 148. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here to hear me say this, but essentially, giving this responsibility to local authorities has proved to be a failure. Not one local fluoridation scheme has gone through under the auspices of local authority leadership, and we must conclude that leaving it to local authorities is likely to mean that we will not see fluoridation developed in any part of the country.

So this is a national issue and it is right that the Secretary State should take over responsibility; it is also right to acknowledge that, in September last year, the four Chief Medical Officers stated:

“As with all things in medicine and public health there is a balance of risk and benefit.”


We have certainly learned that in the last two years. As they said:

“There is unquestionably an issue with tooth decay in the UK and an entrenched inequality which needs to be addressed. Fluoridation of water can reduce this common problem … On balance, there is strong scientific evidence that water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving dental health equality across the UK. It should be seen as a complementary strategy, not a substitute for other effective methods of increasing fluoride use.”


I think that is a very wise assessment of the situation. The effectiveness of fluoridation of water supplies to improve oral health has been evident for many decades. Some communities such as my own—Birmingham—have taken advantage and, as a result, we generally enjoy good overall oral health, but progress in spreading these benefits has been very slow. The transfer to local government, I am afraid, did not work.

So I strongly support the thrust of these clauses; in fact, they are the two most welcome clauses in the whole Bill. The question, however, is whether they will bite, and this is what lies behind my amendments. Amendment 260 concerns the consultation process. I do not think I have got the wording in quite the right place—frankly, trying to find my way through the Water Act and changes to it over the last 20 years or so proved beyond me—but the intent is to ask: if there is to be consultation about schemes, please can we move away from the local consultations that have to be gone through at the moment? They are an absolute nightmare. They bring out opposition from national bodies that causes mayhem in the locality.

The issue is not the practicalities of the scheme but about going back over the principle. The very fact that the Government have brought these clauses has decided the principle of the benefit of fluoridation. If there is to be a consultation, for goodness’ sake, let us have just one instead of the myriad local consultations that have obviously got in the way of progress in the past.

My Amendment 261 is part probing. Currently, the Bill gives the Secretary State power to make regulations to require a public body to meet the costs to the Secretary of State in relation to fluoridation schemes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the reasons and circumstances under which they would be used. My concern would be that asking too hard a subvention of local bodies might inhibit the progress of fluoridation schemes. Amendment 262 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that a programme for implementing water fluoridation schemes is established within 12 months of the Bill being passed. I would like to see a report every three years, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the progress made in implementing new water fluoridation schemes. The basic purpose would be to ensure that the Government get on with this, establishing more schemes and spreading the benefits across the entire community as soon as possible. I beg to move, and hope that I have met the noble Baroness’s test.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 260, 261 and 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on water fluoridation.

The NHS rightly prides itself on being evidence-based. Nevertheless, when Ara Darzi became health Minister, he was concerned that, in a number of areas such as the treatment of diabetes, there was not a full assessment of regular outcomes, as opposed to the fantastic clinical trials on new treatments for specific diseases. Hence, he introduced his atlas of outcomes. It showed, for example, absolutely unacceptable different outcomes for diabetes if you lived in Cornwall—where you were more likely to lose a leg—compared with Essex. There were serious lessons to be drawn from that, which needed to be applied in other areas, too.