Procurement Bill [Lords]

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

This House, this country and the British public have a long history of supporting human rights. That is why I rise to support amendment 3 in my name. It is signed by Members from across this House.

Up to 100,000 people are brutally butchered for their organs in the People’s Republic of China. It is industrial-scale, state-sponsored organ harvesting, now a nationwide industry worth more than £800 million. The average age of victims is 28. That is not a mere coincidence: 28 is considered by the Chinese Communist party to be the best age for organ harvesting. Hundreds of thousands are kept in internment camps until they are ripe for slaughter. Two or three organs from healthy young adults—28—are worth up to half a million pounds.

The evidence for this crime is growing by the day. The China and Uyghur tribunals, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, former lead prosecutor at The Hague, concluded that Falun Gong, a peaceful religious movement, was the primary target. Worse still, the Chinese Communist authorities have now added the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, some Christians and other prisoners of conscience. The tribunals heard reliable evidence of Uyghur Muslims being subjected to comprehensive blood testing and the collection of DNA, which would allow the oppressive regime to create an organ bank, ready for withdrawals on demand.

Forced organ harvesting is an evil practice that this Government should be doing all they can to stop. At present, there are no specific restrictions on suppliers who are involved in forced organ harvesting. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister stated that this Bill was not the appropriate place to address this issue. I could not disagree more. The hard-earned money of our constituents is free to be used propping up this evil atrocity, but that is not right in a country that prides itself on supporting human rights. We all have a duty to our constituents to make sure they are not inadvertently supporting organ harvesting, or any crime indeed. The Minister also said that forced organ harvesting would already be covered on the grounds of professional misconduct. We have heard that before, only for it to turn out, once a Bill becomes law, that it is not covered. On professional misconduct, may I provide just one example? Once when a surgeon was removing organs, he noticed—he went into a cold sweat—that the body he was operating on was in shock: he was still alive. Professional misconduct!

Forced organ harvesting is not an issue to take such a chance on; it needs specific references relating to this crime against humanity. Last month’s G7 heard our Prime Minister state that we need to work together with our allies to “de-risk” ourselves from China. In the United States, Congressman Chris Smith has introduced a Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Bill, which the House of Representatives almost unanimously supported—straight across. This amendment keeps us in line with our allies. Last November, the Prime Minister delivered his big foreign policy speech and said, on our relationship with China, that

“we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values… And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.”

This amendment is robust pragmatism in practice. It is not grand rhetoric, but action— action to make sure we are strong in defending our values; action to make sure public money is not supporting a crime against humanity; action that this whole House can be proud of, as it always has been on human rights.

I urge Members from across the House to support amendment 3 to keep our hands clean from this evil practice of forced organ harvesting. We must not continue to turn a blind eye to these horrendous breaches of human rights. Governments across the world need to step up on this. We need to be working together, for—believe you me—China would be far more difficult than Russia.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate. Everyone has had the opportunity to speak on their own amendments and I find myself trying to speak on everyone’s amendments. I will do my best but if I miss anyone’s it is not personal—it is just that there are a lot of them. I will try to focus on those we are expected to vote on and some that we feel most passionately about.

I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the positions of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and recognising that they are consistent with previous positions on trade deals. We consistently believe there is overreach in extending into devolved areas and that is why legislative consent has been withheld on this occasion. Since Brexit particularly, the UK Parliament has been meddling in devolved areas, or allowing itself the power to do so, far more than previously. That is one of the many unfortunate consequences of “bringing back power”: it is power to the Executive, not so much to the devolved Administrations or the rest of us in Parliament.

This Bill is key because the spending of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of, and on behalf of, taxpayers is a hugely powerful and important method the Government can use to ensure that they serve citizens in the best possible way, and that they support behaviours that they want to support and reject those they want to reject, in much the same way as tax laws and new tax measures can be created and implemented to discourage or encourage certain behaviours. There is an opportunity in the Procurement Bill and public procurement to do more than the Government have done in encouraging behaviour.

A number of amendments from Opposition Front Benchers specifically focus on that. I am pleased to see the tax transparency amendment, new clause 10. It makes sense to ask companies to be open and upfront about how much tax they are paying. It is very difficult to find out some of this information and it makes a huge amount of sense that decisions around public procurement could and should be made on the basis of considering whether companies are actually paying the tax they are or should be liable for here.

Amendment 2 from the Opposition on transparency declarations is also incredibly sensible. A number of Members around the House have mentioned the VIP lanes and the fact that there were fast-track contracts in relation to covid. The amendment strikes the right balance. The Government say we need to have fast-track processes and to be able to award contracts quickly. Amendment 2 would still allow that to happen. It would allow the speed that is necessary in emergencies and crises such as covid. It would allow procurement to happen speedily, but would increase the transparency; whether it is an MP, a peer, a senior civil servant or a Minister, a transparency declaration would be required. We wholeheartedly support that amendment.

I turn to amendment 18 on breaching staff rights. The amendment is once again about trying to encourage the behaviour we want to see. We want to see public money, public spending and public contracts going to companies who treat their workers fairly and do not breach workers’ rights. The amendment sets a high bar on exclusion from public procurement as it is specifically about excluding those companies found guilty by an employment tribunal or a court; it not just on the basis of one whistleblower whose case may not yet have been proven. Once again, we wholeheartedly support that.