Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Kirsty Blackman

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be here talking about Lords amendments for the second day in a row. I am glad to see the Procurement Bill making progress and getting towards becoming legislation. As the Minister has commented on a number of occasions, we have not got to the place that he wanted in relation to his conversations with the Scottish Government about the Bill. To be fair, we have also not got to the place we wanted for the Bill. Neither of us is entirely happy with the position that has been reached, but I do appreciate the work that has been done to communicate between the Governments on this. Both tried to find a compromise solution, but it was just impossible on this occasion to come to one that we were both happy with.

Specifically on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B on forced organ harvesting, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has laid out a number of very important points and I do not want to go over those. The Minister has said there is an absence of evidence that there is any forced organ harvesting in any of the supply chains involved in UK procurement, and I do appreciate that that is case. However, if the Government are able to find out that there is an absence of evidence on this, surely it should not be beyond the means of those procuring or of companies supplying or buying things that are bidding for Government procurement contracts to find out that their supply chains are not involved. If the Government are able to find out these things, surely those companies should.

The point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli about raising awareness is incredibly important. We have worked very hard with companies through the changes in various Acts, including improving companies’ corporate social responsibility and requiring them to make modern slavery statements. We have worked hard to ensure that companies are taking their social responsibilities seriously, and I therefore do not think that this measure is unreasonable. It would not apply to all companies; it applies only to companies bidding for Government contracts. Surely we want companies bidding for Government contracts to ensure that they are as within the law as possible, upholding human rights and demonstrating corporate social responsibility. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask those companies to look into their supply chains and consider whether they are financially supporting organisations or companies that are involved in forced organ harvesting. I think it is reasonable for us to ask them to spend a little bit of time doing this if they expect to take on Government contracts.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Actually, it is simpler even than that. In America, first, it is an offence for a company to have falsified, knowingly or unknowingly, its declarations on supply chains. Secondly, the US Government use companies such as Oritain that use criminal science to test where products were made and whether declarations were correct, and they are therefore able to enforce them. What is happening is that those supply chains are now being rigorously declared by American companies that do not wish to lose Government business. It would not be too much to ask the Government to do spot checks, using such companies that are available to them, and I have recommended it to the Foreign Office, not that that really matters.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think the right hon. Member makes a reasonable and proportionate suggestion. Although we disagree on lots of things, I am very surprised to find myself agreeing with him for the second time this week on this. I do appreciate his suggestion, and I hope those on his Front Bench are listening to the advice he has given.

I am not going to test the House’s patience by dragging this out. We will be voting with the Labour party against the Government’s motion to disagree, because we believe that the more stringent controls are something it is absolutely reasonable for us to ask of companies. This is not for all companies, as I have said, but just for those that hope to get Government contracts.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Kirsty Blackman

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and those of 26 others in the House of all parties.

The real issue here is the existence of a specific law in China that makes pretty much all companies in China, but particularly those involved in technology, a public risk in procurement to the United Kingdom. Article 7 of the People’s Republic of China national intelligence law 2017 states:

“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”

In other words, under the Chinese national intelligence law, they must completely comply with all demands and requests for information in the business they are in, and deny they have done that to any other country or authority that asks. We have had Chinese companies coming to the House and lying to Select Committees about what they are doing, all saying that they have no obligations under the national intelligence law. They do have obligations under that law and they will lie for their country as a result.

We need to start by understanding the problems, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having listened to the arguments and changed the terms, first by referencing the national intelligence law, which is very important, because many Departments will play fast and loose unless what they must do is made very clear. We have been encouraging the Government, who came out with views on Hikvision, Dahua and other companies supplying surveillance equipment to the UK, knowing that they are a surveillance risk not because they are cameras in a particular fashion but because what they glean is available completely to the Chinese authorities under the national security laws.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the small devices—a growing threat that I have not referenced but which also gets caught by the national intelligence law. China is leading in this technology, which is one way in which it can keep track of its own people, but they are now using it more broadly. I had a suspicion and heard that the cars that my hon. Friend was referencing were Downing Street cars. There is a very good chance that the Prime Minister and others may have been tracked by the Chinese Government without our knowledge.

We must therefore remember that first and foremost China poses a significant threat to us, our interests and the way we live our lives. Until we all agree and come to those terms, we simply cannot move on; that is the key. Government Departments and the Government have dragged their feet over this because we do not want to upset the Chinese—but it takes a lot to upset the Chinese because they carry on as before. The amendment is intended to get the Government to accept that we should reference the national intelligence law because that defines all Chinese business and companies and therefore they are a threat.

There are other Chinese companies that are a problem that will not be named, and surveillance cameras are part of this. I must confess that when my brother-in-law went around an area of a farm looking at the surveillance cameras, he spotted that they were Hikvision cameras—they are not listed in the contract because the contract provider is a UK organisation, but we discovered that they are everywhere.

Once I heard the news that the Government clearly wanted Departments to get rid of those cameras, I made a set of freedom of information requests to all Departments about whether they had cameras, where they were, whether they were on their buildings, and what plans they had to get rid of them, having spotted that a lot of Departments still had them, including the Ministry of Defence. All Departments—bar I think the Wales Office, which came clean and said it did not have any or was getting rid of them—claimed that, under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they did not have to answer because it was a security risk. The security risk is having the cameras, not answering the damned question! Excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about where the cameras are and what they are doing, and that is the point of the amendment.

I hope that Ministers will take this matter forward and tell Departments to stop obfuscating. If they are asked a direct question they should tell the honest truth and explain that under the new rules under the Bill they will be getting rid of those cameras, which is absolutely critical.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on national security, particularly the risk posed by this equipment. I credit him and others across the House who have worked to encourage the Government to move on this matter. As well as the national security issue, does he share my concern that companies such as Hikvision are involved in human rights abuses in China, for example with the Uyghur Muslims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is not the subject of the amendment but I will touch on it briefly. I have already spoken to the unions on this and I am very much in line with their position. The Government need to look very carefully at what has taken place, particularly because it reduces competition in the market. The links to the authoritarianism of the Chinese is one of the big worries, so I suggest that the Government have a serious look at that.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), these cameras are also being used in internal suppression in China. We know about the suppression of the Uyghurs; that is a genocide that is taking place. Even though the Government will not say it is genocide, everybody else believes it is: Parliament here has said it; the Americans have now said it; and so, too, have many other countries. I do not know why we cannot say this is genocide, but that is a question for another debate. The fact is that many of these instruments are being used as part of that suppression in the camps as well as to watch carefully so that suppression can take place. Right now, forced labour, forced sterilisation and re-education in camps are all taking place in China.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) referred from the Dispatch Box to the Opposition’s amendments. It is worth reminding her that China poses a risk in just about every single area with its human rights abuses and abuses of workers’ rights, yet so many of our companies want to ignore that.

While I welcome much of what the Government have done, I do not plan to move new clause 1 today, but only because I want more from the Government. I think they understand that.

I come back to the “sensitive” point. The truth is that, by definition, all Government Departments must be sensitive. As I said, I spent six years in charge of the DWP, and what I know is that there is arguably no more sensitive Department, because stopping payments for one or two days from the DWP would wreak havoc across the United Kingdom. People would not be able to get money to pay their rent, to buy their food or to live—all those things of vital importance. So a foreign power might be able to use information to target a Department such as the DWP that is not on the list because it may not appear as sensitive as the Ministry of Defence, GCHQ or—God bless us—the Foreign Office, when in reality, it is much more sensitive.

When we try to use a word like “sensitive” to give ourselves a little bit of a break, the problem becomes: who defines sensitive, and how often we will redefine it? I recommend that the Government describe all Departments as sensitive or else get rid of the word. That would put the onus on the Departments to come to the Cabinet Office to say, “We need an exemption for a period” or, “We can’t do this as fast.” The current wording means that they will not have to do that if they are outwith the term “sensitive.”

The reality is that we have had a number of Dispatch Box commitments from a load of Government Ministers about interpreting these things, but they never come to fruition. We were promised guidance in the other place on slavery during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, but that was never put in. We really want the Government to commit at the Dispatch Box to changing what they are doing with “sensitive” when the Bill goes to the other place. “Sensitive” is too weak a position. It lets Departments off the hook and will put all the onus on the Cabinet Office. That must be reversed to ensure that this removal gets done.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I really appreciate the right hon. Member giving way again. Would he consider asking the Government for removal from all sites and, when they produce their timeline, to have them say, “These are our priority sites, which will be done first, but there will be removal from all sites off the back of that”? That would cover removal from all sites but allow the Government to prioritise if they cannot do things overnight.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree that that would be the common-sense way of doing it; I think we are all on the same page on this one.

The thing about our new clause is that, without the word “sensitive”, the position is simple. The new clause uses the same language as the Cabinet Office’s announcement in November, which recommended the removal of Chinese CCTV from sensitive sites. Now, that was the wording. Okay. But when we ask, “What has happened? How many Departments have felt under pressure to do that?”, we start to discover that they are not doing it because it is too difficult, and they want the requirement to go away. My answer is: do not use the word “sensitive” in that respect. It is about national security law, and Government Departments must either be completely defined as “sensitive”—if we want to use that word—or be bound to rid themselves of all companies obligated under the national security law. If they are unable to do that, they must make their case so that we can question that publicly and comment about what is going on.

I conclude on this simple point. The new clause is there to try to make it clear that we face a most significant and dangerous threat from the Chinese Communist party in control of China today. It is everywhere. It is using slave labour to produce polysilicon to collect solar rays. We all beat our chests proudly and proclaim that we are heading towards net zero, but on whose backs is that? It is people working in slave labour conditions to produce these things, people under surveillance, and people taken away on genocides. A Government already doing this internally are now referring it out to us. We must make it clear beyond peradventure that Government Departments must now rid themselves of equipment and never place contracts with other companies on equipment that comes under the rule of the national security law. I am looking for commitments from the Government today that, by the time the Bill gets to the other place, that will finally be resolved. If so, they will have my approval and that of many others in the Chamber.