Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Therefore we are looking to the Minister to explain to us how the latest crisis impacts on the Government’s thinking in respect of allowing Huawei to participate in what the Government have termed non-critical infrastructure, but which many of us think is critical infrastructure if it relates to the rollout of 5G and superfast broadband.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I am extremely happy to be able to support Amendments 9 and 14, standing in the name of my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and so ably moved by her this afternoon.

In tackling risks posed by high-risk vendors, she opens an extraordinarily important debate. Amendment 9 imposes a deadline on operators, and Amendment 14 puts in place a mechanism to ensure their removal should it be shown that they pose a national security concern. To pick up on a point the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, just made, I am delighted that the clerks have ruled the amendments to be within scope, and I hope that it will be possible, as I shall suggest in my later remarks, for us to build on them further on Report. However, in addition to supporting the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I too am grateful to the Government for facilitating Second Reading speeches this afternoon.

These proceedings take me back to 1981, when in the House of Commons I served on the Standing Committee which considered the British Telecommunications Act 1981. It was a steep learning curve for me. Plessey was based in my Liverpool constituency, and it was inspiring to see British technology and companies at the very cutting edge. It is lamentable to see how far we have fallen back in manufacturing capacity. If Covid-19 has taught us anything, it is surely that we must become more resilient and less dependent in our supply chains, especially when so many authoritarian countries mock our liberal values. Even worse, it cannot be in the United Kingdom’s interests to have become so dependent on authoritarian regimes for the manufacture of technology which can be utilised by them for anti-democratic purposes, to undermine free societies, human rights and the rule of law.

That is why I hope to build on these two admirable amendments when we come to Report. I am grateful to have received through correspondence over the weekend the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Adonis.

We should all do more to ensure that high-risk vendors credibly accused of egregious abuses of human rights, such as complicity in the modern slavery of Turkic Muslims in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, will be excluded from being beneficiaries of the provisions of this legislation. In this context, I should mention that I am a vice-chairman of the APPG on Uighurs and human rights in Xinjiang and that, on 15 occasions since 2018, I have raised in your Lordships’ House the plight of the Uighurs: their incarceration, forced re-education and use as slave labour in various ways.

In January, in relation to Huawei and 5G, I asked the Government

“what assessment they have made in relation to their decision to award contracts to Huawei and other companies of the implications of the government of China’s National Intelligence Law requiring Chinese organisations and citizens to support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work.”

I also asked the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the Government about

“Huawei’s compliance with the Modern Slavery Act”

and

“what consideration they have given to such compliance in regard to their decision to award contracts to Huawei”.

She replied:

“The UK Government expressed its concerns about China’s systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang, including credible and growing reports of forced labour, during the recent UN Human Rights Council.”


That deftly dodged my question and the issue of what we are going to do about the use of slave labour in our supply chains. Profiteering on the broken backs of enslaved Uighurs is either a criminal offence under British law or it is not. Either it is a nice slogan and good public relations or we take it deadly seriously and refuse to profit from it.

Be in no doubt about what we know. As long ago as December 2018, I pointed to reports that

“suggest that up to 1 million Uighurs have been incarcerated without trial in a network of sinister re-education camps: these are bristling with barbed wire and watchtowers, with torture and brainwashing that demands renouncing god and embracing Communism.”—[Official Report, 19/12/18; col. 1804.]

The Government do not disagree with these descriptions.

On 18 March 2020, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, about the use of Uighur forced labour and what assessment the Government had made

“of reports that the government of China transferred Uighurs from detention centres to work in factories where products are produced for global brands; and what plans they have to take action against such companies under the provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”

He replied:

“Recent reports indicating that Uyghurs are being used as a source of forced labour add to the growing body of evidence about the disturbing situation that Uyghurs and other minorities are facing in Xinjiang. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies operating in the UK with a turnover of £36m or more to publish annual statements setting out what steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their organisation and supply chains. The Home Office keeps compliance under active review.”


In a Westminster Hall debate on 11 March, Nigel Adams, the Minister for Asia, said:

“We have also seen credible evidence to suggest that Uighurs are being used as a source of forced labour in Xinjiang and across China, and that if individuals refuse to participate, they and their families are threatened with extra-judicial detention.”


He went on to say:

“Our intelligence is that families are also obliged to host Chinese officials in their homes for extended periods, to demonstrate their loyalty to the Communist party. On the streets, Uighurs and other minorities are continuously watched by police, supported by extensive use of facial recognition technology and restrictions on movement.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; cols. 149-50WH.]


That was the Government, but in a report entitled Uyghurs for sale, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute outlined how Uighurs and other ethnic Muslim minorities are uprooted, wrenched from their villages, separated from their loved ones, and coercively transported under guard, across China, to work in factories. That report estimates that, between 2017 and 2019, around 80,000 Uighurs were transferred from detention centres in Xinjiang to factories throughout China. Far from their homes, devoid of family contact, incarcerated in segregated dormitories and subjected to propaganda and systematic attempts to destroy their culture, religion and identity, the labourers are kept under 24-hour surveillance. The report examines the direct and indirect supply chains of 83 leading global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, such as Apple, BMW, Huawei, Nike and others.

Are these companies directly complicit? One of the Australian institute’s researchers, Vicky Xu, says that the idea that Huawei is not working directly with local governments in Xinjiang is “just straight-up nonsense”. The 2018 announcement of one Huawei public security project in Xinjiang—as posted on a Chinese government website in Urumqi—quoted a Huawei director as saying:

“Together with the Public Security Bureau, Huawei will unlock a new era of smart policing and help build a safer, smarter society.”


This is not speculation, or evidence extrapolated from big data. This is straight from the horse’s mouth. We all know that safer, smarter policing is a euphemism that would make George Orwell roll in his grave. Huawei is making huge profits from Xinjiang’s unique techno-totalitarianism.

In December, our Government were alerted to the Australian report in a joint letter from parliamentarians from across both Houses, but again they sidestepped the issue. Their reply to us ignored the need for the Government to conduct the same human rights due diligence that they now demand of corporations. Where is that due diligence in the Bill? The more dependent we become on firms whose ties with the Chinese state extend as far as the construction of Xinjiang’s surveillance technology, the harder it will become to take a credible stance. The deeper our dependency becomes, the harder it is to stand up for our values. Huawei’s activities in Xinjiang should alert us to its true allegiances and values: its willingness to create mass surveillance technology and its devotion to, and dependency on, the Chinese Communist Party.

The most striking thing in the Government’s Statement to Parliament in January was the repeated admission of the risks involved, but where is that reflected in the Bill? And why take risks when alternatives are available? In January, like the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I asked the Government to consider whether, in former times, the United Kingdom would have been willing to put its technology into the hands of the Kremlin, knowing what crimes were being committed in the gulags of Siberia, as in The Gulag Archipelago. The human rights-focused Helsinki process helped to bring an end to the Cold War and liberated the people suffering under the yoke of communist ideology. Today we need Helsinki with Chinese characteristics. We do not need to betray our values.

To mark Holocaust Memorial Day this year, I read Corrie ten Boom’s memoir, The Hiding Place. After sheltering Jews from the Nazi regime, Ms ten Boom was sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp. She describes her experience of doing forced labour for Siemens in the camps where her sister and many others died. The Holocaust saw state-sponsored mass enslavement on an appalling scale. Ironically, on the morning following Holocaust Memorial Day, the United Kingdom National Security Council committed to sign over up to 35% of our 5G infrastructure to Huawei, a company that the Government know actively partners with the Xinjiang Government to make the world’s most dystopian system of governance possible. Is what happened at Ravensbrück, or in The Gulag Archipelago, so very different from the plight of these 1 million Uighur Muslims, incarcerated and forced to work for nothing? It is surely our duty to ensure that legislation such as this does not further entrench what academics have described as the world’s worst incident of state-sanctioned slavery.

The United Kingdom Government have, admirably, expressed their ambition to lead the world in their anti-slavery commitment. When we come to Report, I hope that the Government will put flesh on the bones of that commitment and ensure that no deals are made with any company for which there are credible reports of slave labour. For now, I support the amendment standing in the noble Baroness’s name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

I apologise to the noble Lord. We have said that we will introduce the Bill as soon as possible, but the Covid situation has caused some disruption to the parliamentary timetable. The commitment to do it as quickly as possible stands, however.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for the way she has responded to the debate, particularly her remarks about how important this question is. What she just said to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is particularly interesting. If there has been slippage in the legislative timetable, and I recognise the reasons for it, surely that makes it even more important that this paving Bill—that is what this is, effectively—is the right place to address these questions. If it is not, they will go off into the future and we know that the future can be the long grass.

It is the age-old argument about the right place and the right time but, given the Minister’s welcome remarks about the importance of this issue, may I ask her to do one thing between now and Report? I would be very grateful if she could assure the Committee that she will liaise with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, at the Foreign Office and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, at the Home Office about our obligations, referred to in my remarks, under Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. These require any company with a turnover of more than £36 million to publish details of what steps they are taking to prevent modern slavery. Perhaps in that period there could also be a meeting with me, my noble friend Lady Falkner and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who was appointed by the Government. He could come in and talk further to the Minister about our obligations and why we really need to act now, rather than push the matter off into the future.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

5: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) there are no grounds to suspect the operator intends to use the telecommunications infrastructure, or any part of it, to breach human rights after 31 December 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to prevent companies from using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuse. This seeks to build on the transparency in supply chain provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 by including the digital supply chain in telecommunications infrastructure.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in returning to an issue which I raised in Committee on 19 May, I first thank the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for making good on her promise to meet and to draw in Ministers from the Home Office and Foreign Office. We have held three such meetings and had several other conversations to scope out the issues. Throughout, she has been attentive, courteous and generous with her time. I am grateful to her.

I also thank the co-sponsors of this cross-party amendment: the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine. Their advice and that of Luke de Pulford, the founder of both the anti-slavery charity Arise and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, whose work in defence of the Uighur people has been outstanding, has been invaluable.

I greatly appreciate the encouragement of all noble Lords who have indicated their support for this amendment, some of whom we will hear from during the debate. My noble friends Lady Cox, Lady Finlay and Lady O’Loan will speak with great knowledge and conviction about why a human rights threshold must be placed in this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is in his place, kindly emailed me to say that he and his noble friend Lord Fox would be encouraging their Liberal Democrat colleagues to support the amendment; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has indicated the support of the Green Party parliamentarians; and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has given wise advice in seeking to persuade the Government to accept the principle, if not the detail, of the amendment. I am also heartened to have the vocal support of senior members of the Conservative Party, including that of one former party leader. I should declare that I am vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Xinjiang and the Uighurs.

Noble Lords should be prepared during the debate for opponents to claim, as Governments always claim about Back-Bench amendments, that there are technical issues with the drafting and that the time is not right—but the time is never right. If the Government agree with the principle and believe that it is something that should be enshrined in legislation, I hope that during our debate they will be persuaded that it should be given further thought, and avail themselves of the opportunity which Third Reading presents in your Lordships’ House to make good on the principles, if not the detail, of amendments.

Let me divide my remarks into three parts: what the amendment actually does; what the arguments are for and against it; and why a human rights threshold is needed at all. Turning to the first of those, the amendment is necessarily limited to the scope of this Bill, which deals with leased properties—for example, blocks of flats. If accepted, Amendment 5 would introduce a human rights threshold which would prevent companies involved in human rights abuses using such buildings’ telecommunications infrastructure to carry out such violations. On the face of it, this feels a very narrow Bill for an amendment that is conceptually extremely broad. I will explain later why that is not so.

The broader context to this amendment will not have passed noble Lords by. It was drawn up in response to mounting evidence that certain companies are complicit in the atrocities suffered by Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Its purpose is to prevent such companies gaining further access, however small, to our telecommunications infrastructure. Our amendment couples with new paragraph 27B, which sets out conditions under which providers may supply internet to leasehold properties. By preventing companies using “any part” of this telecommunications infrastructure in procuring human rights abuse, the amendment necessarily includes the digital supply chain. Let us consider that for a moment.

It may not be plainly obvious to all that, when we speak of telecommunications infrastructure, we are not speaking merely about hardware. “Digital infra- structure” does not just mean wires, lest noble Lords were thinking that this amendment would prevent companies using only our actual wires or the boxes containing them to perpetrate abuses. As one common definition has it, telecommunications infrastructure means:

“Organizations, personnel, procedures, facilities and networks employed to transmit and receive information by electrical or electronic means.”


To some extent, the Government must concede this because the Bill before us also deals with personnel and facilities, not just hardware. I mention this merely to make a simple point: if companies supplying our leasehold infrastructure with internet services are also abusing human rights, our infrastructure therefore becomes a tool in that abuse.

The notion that we can carve up a digital company into the parts that are abusing human rights and the parts that are not is palpably absurd. This argument might have more credibility in a different industry, but against a background of allegations about Huawei maintaining a repository of data in China on those who use their mobile devices in other countries, it quickly falls apart.

The amendment does two significant things. It would empower the Government to deny infrastructure access to operators that they believe are abusing human rights, and it begins an important new conversation about how our modern slavery legislation might apply to the digital economy, especially regarding supply chain transparency.

I move to the second part of what I want to say to your Lordships: the arguments for and against the amendment. In Committee and during the meetings with the noble Baroness and other Ministers, it was readily conceded that Huawei poses significant human rights concerns. A principal argument was that we should kick this down the road to the telecommunications security Bill. However, one of the benefits of those meetings is that I learned from the Bill manager of the telecommunications security Bill that it will not be wide enough for such a human rights amendment to be placed on its face and to be in scope. Fortunately, this amendment is in scope and gives us an immediate opportunity to act and to set a precedent for what follows.

Two former Conservative Cabinet Ministers who support the amendment have both said, one directly to the Minister, that telling parliamentarians to wait for some other vehicle is the oldest argument in the book—they both said that they had used it in their time. We all know that kicking things down the road rarely brings a result. Indeed, it was suggested that an entirely new Bill based on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 might be the appropriate vehicle, but there is no timetable, no certainty and no urgency. An imperfect vehicle it may be, but this is the legislative vehicle currently before your Lordships’ House. It can and should be used to preclude further involvement of human rights-abusing companies in our telecommunications industry.

A further argument is that the Government would not wish to introduce a human rights standard for one sector that would be different from that for other sectors. They mentioned the garment sector and said that a single set of human rights principles is required, not piecemeal legislation. This was the very argument used to justify excluding more concrete measures from Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which, incidentally, does not apply to all business, just those with a turnover in excess of £36 million—a point regularly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, who we will hear from later, and by me. In addition, one of the failings of the Act is that the supply chain transparency provisions do not really make sense to industries, such as financial services or telecommunications, that do not have traditional supply mechanisms.

A strengthening of the modern slavery legislation would be very welcome, but it is not an argument for not taking action in this sector now. I am, as the Minister knows, an incrementalist by nature—I have used the phrase to her in our conversations. If this amendment became a benchmark for other measures and industries, it would set a fine precedent, not create an anomaly. Waiting for new Acts of Parliament is like waiting for Godot. We have an opportunity to make a start by passing a declaratory amendment that will have an immediate impact—an opportunity we should take.

We have also been told that operators will face “uncertainty” because of “undefined terminology”. This will therefore have a “chilling effect”, which would lead to court cases. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with his huge experience of serving on the boards of major companies, has said to me that any company offered such advice should sack the person who gave it. All of us can distinguish between minor infringements of human rights and egregious violations of human rights, such as those involving the use of slave labour in Xinjiang. Operators would have only to read Hansard, which is often cited in legal actions, to see what Parliament’s intention had been in incorporating this amendment or one like it. If the issue ever did go to the courts, a judge would have no difficulty in marking the difference. This will not be a problem unless all our telecommunications operators are perpetrating human rights abuses. I certainly do not believe that is the case.

Throughout, I have made clear to the Government my willingness to withdraw the amendment in favour of one from them if it would help to better target and catch the sharks. I was initially told that that would not be possible because the department had been given legal advice that it would not be able to get an amendment in scope, but how can that be when this amendment is in scope? Even at this late hour it is still open to the Government to come forward with their own amendments at Third Reading. If the Minister can concede the principle and give such an assurance, I am sure it would be possible to postpone a Division today while further work is undertaken on a human rights threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I start again by thanking your Lordships for giving me the opportunity to speak, rather unusually, in the middle of this very important debate. In no way was there any intention to shut down the debate. I hoped that clarifying the Government’s position would allow noble Lords to focus their remarks. I offer my thanks again for that flexibility.

I would like to address two things. First, a number of noble Lords raised the point about companies needing to do the right thing. Of course the companies that we are talking about are in compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and Section 54 but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows better than probably the rest of us put together, there are problems and issues with the teeth of Section 54; that is, in a way, at the heart of his amendment and will be at the heart of our response to the consultation later this summer. Secondly, I would like to reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others, so as to bring absolute clarity to my remarks.

I hope that I echo exactly the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, if I confirm that I am happy and content to bring this issue back at Third Reading. We will also allow time for the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Stevenson, and others who have spoken today to address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his amendment. We will endeavour to find all the time possible to have sufficient ground to bring back a government amendment. I hope that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will be rooted in that amendment and with that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, we have been privileged to hear outstanding speeches from many outstanding Members of your Lordships’ House. We have heard moving, powerful and well-informed contributions throughout the debate. I have great admiration for the sincerity and integrity of the Minister, and the House will be relieved to know that the word “but” does not now follow—at least, not just yet.

I am not precious about the wording of the amendment but I am determined about the principle. The Minister will understand that the House has been determined about that in speech after speech today. The frustration that her noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe expressed about our procedures and the inadequate way—inevitably, because of the current circumstances—in which we have dealt with this has, I think, not been lost on her either. I have to tell the Minister that a flurry of messages I have been receiving, from those who contributed to the debate and people outside the Chamber, are saying “Please press this to a vote”. It is therefore a tricky thing to decide what to do in these circumstances. After 40 years of battles on the Floors of both our Houses, I am long enough in the tooth to recognise a change of heart when I see it. I see the beginning of a change of heart in what the Minister has said to us today. I am pragmatic about these things; I believe one should accept that in the spirit in which it has been given and try to build on it.

This is where the “but” falls. The four sponsors of the amendment may be called many things—indeed, we all have from time to time been called many things—but I think we have never been described as naive and none of us are gullible. We are all seasoned in the practical art of politics and will of course be wary of Greeks and their gifts. In other words, if the Government are able to produce a human rights threshold with teeth —as the Minister has been urged to do by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench; by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, speaking for the Liberal Democrats; by my noble friend Lady Falkner and many of the Cross-Benchers who contributed to the debate; and, most notably really, by many of her own noble friends because this goes left, right and centre, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the House of Commons—we must find a way to catch the sharks but not the minnows. That is at the heart of what the Minister was saying, and I agree with her about that. We have to catch those who collaborate, aid and abet in these egregious violations of human rights that we have heard about today.

If the Minister is able at Third Reading to come back with an amendment that does those things, then I for one will be the first to stand and applaud it, and to support her. If she is unable to do that, this amendment, thanks to the procedures of your Lordships’ House, will stay in contention. It is important for some of our noble friends and colleagues to realise that if we vote now and this amendment is lost, that will be the end of the matter. There is nothing then to send back to the House of Commons; nothing that people in another place can consider further. But if the matter stays in contention, as the Minister has offered, for another week or 10 days—however long it is before the Bill comes back for Third Reading—then under our procedures this amendment will appear again on the Order Paper, alongside whatever she is able to provide for us.

I hope that the Minister can provide an amendment that cuts to the core of what my noble friend Lady Cox described as a battle of beliefs. I hope that it will do something to overcome some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, raised. These are not insuperable problems; they can all be overcome. Perhaps most importantly of all, such an amendment would set a benchmark and a threshold, showing that we will not do business with people who incarcerate, torture, abduct and silence. We are not prepared to tolerate those things—why should we?

Our values are something that this House has stood for down the generations; although those values have sometimes been tarnished, generally, we have tried in this parliamentary democracy to show what it is we believe in. We have been united in that, in good times and in bad. However, I fear that we have had a crisis of belief. In recent times, we seem to have forgotten the nature of liberal democracy and the things that we stand for as a nation: the rule of law and human rights. My noble friend Lady O’Loan spoke so eloquently about such universal values, as enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This amendment is a modest attempt—in this Bill and in all the Bills that will follow, on this issue and others—not just for a review, as some have called for, but for a legislative provision with teeth. We have an opportunity. Because of the good will that the Minister has shown, and because I am not naive or gullible and know that there will be a chance to come back on another occasion to both this amendment and to whatever the Government can offer, we will postpone—not cancel—the Division. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(f) there are no grounds to suspect the operator intends to use the telecommunications infrastructure, or any part of it, to breach human rights after 31 December 2023.(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(f), “human rights” has the meaning of “the Convention rights” given by section 1(1) (the Convention Rights) of the Human Rights Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to prevent companies from using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuse. To the extent that “use” of the infrastructure “or any part of it” brings in the supply chain, this seeks to engage the transparency in supply chain provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 we return to an issue that we debated at Report stage of this Bill, back in June. Amendment 1 seeks to prevent companies using the United Kingdom’s telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuses. To the extent that use of the infrastructure, or any part of it, brings in the supply chain, this seeks to engage the transparency in supply-chain provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Exactly one year ago, I asked the Government what assessment they had been able to make of the implications of their decision to award contracts to Huawei and other companies required under China’s national intelligence law to support, assist and co-operate with that state’s intelligence work. I also asked about Huawei’s compliance with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and what consideration they have given to such compliance in regard to their decision to award contracts to Huawei. Last year, the Government deftly avoided answering my question by simply saying it had

“expressed its concerns about China’s systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang, including credible and growing reports of forced labour”.

Throughout the previous two years, 2018 and 2019, I had raised my concerns about some of the shocking events unravelling in western China, a region in which I have travelled. In August 2019, for instance, I asked the Government what assessment they had made of reports that United Kingdom investors hold shares totalling £800 million in companies that supply CCTV and facial recognition technology being used to track Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Although aware of the reports, the Government said they had

“not undertaken analysis of British investor shareholdings in Chinese surveillance companies”.

I wonder whether that is still the situation. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply she can tell us.

My dissatisfaction with those replies, and in the context of my involvement in the legislative stages of the 2015 Act, my pro bono role as a trustee of the charity Arise, and as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs, prompted me to speak in Committee on this Bill on 19 May, and again on Report, on 29 June, when I moved an all-party amendment to the Bill. Co-sponsors of that amendment were the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his seat today, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Falkner. Two of them will be speaking to this group today.

In a series of powerful speeches from right across the Chamber—with only one partially dissenting voice—Members of you Lordships’ House made clear their deep anxiety that the Government were ready to hand over up to 35% of our 5G infrastructure to Huawei, a company that actively partners with the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang, where 1 million Uighur are incarcerated and used as slave labour. Parallels were drawn, during the course of that debate, with the way in which companies such as Siemens had used labourers in Nazi concentration camps to build an industrial empire, and the way in which Stalin used gulag labour to power his economic programmes on the backs of those who had been incarcerated.

In June, the Minister asked us not to divide the House but said that she would be willing to return at Third Reading—today—with an amendment to provide a human rights threshold which companies would be required to meet. It was also suggested that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill would be a more appropriate piece of legislation on which to attach such an amendment. I would be grateful if, when the Minister comes to reply, she can confirm that the title of that Bill has been drawn in such a way as to exclude that possibility.

Since June, meetings have been held with the noble Baroness and Ministers from the Department of International Trade, the Home Office and the Foreign Office. The debate also triggered a determination to lay further amendments both to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and to the Trade Bill. I know that the Minister has genuinely and faithfully tried her very best to honour the commitment that she gave to the House in June, and I really am grateful to her for the time and trouble she has taken throughout.

Let me remind the Government and the House why this issue is not going to go away quietly, and why the House will have the chance, on Tuesday next, to demonstrate that. Academics have described Xinjiang as the world’s most shocking example of state-sanctioned slavery. In Committee, I drew the Government’s attention to the work of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and quoted the institute’s Vicky Xu, who said that the idea that Huawei is not working directly with the authorities in Xinjiang is just “straight-up nonsense”.

I sent the Minister a video recording of shackled and blindfolded Uighur Muslims being led from trains to camps. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, whose own family suffered the grotesque horrors of the Shoah— commemorated yesterday, on Holocaust Memorial Day—said that such scenes were

“reminiscent of something not seen for a long time”.

I know that the Minister shares the sense of revulsion that we have all felt on learning of forced sterilisations and forced abortions for Uighur women, to prevent births within their community; the desecration of Uighur cemeteries to eradicate any trace of their identity; the deliberate separation of family members; propagandised re-education; and their exploitation as forced labour. Indeed, she drew my attention to an article in The Economist, setting out the scale and nature of what is being done. We all need to have a better understanding of what it really means when we see a label that says: “made in China”. Who made it? How was it made? Under what conditions was it made?

By way of exchange with the Minister, I would draw her attention to an article in The Spectator that appeared on 23 January. It was written by Harald Maass. He gives the example of Coca Cola’s production plant, which he says is

“a joint venture with a Chinese state company … surrounded by prisons and re-education camps in which China suppresses local ethnic minorities”.

Within 30 kilometres of that plant, there are 25 prisons and internment camps. In the whole of Xinjiang, there are at least 380 internment camps, some of which have huge structures and watchtowers, barbed wire and thousands of inmates. An analysis of satellite imagery suggests that there are crematoria in at least nine of them. The Chinese Communist Party says that the camps are educational and training facilities. Precisely what purpose does a crematorium have in an educational facility?

Uighurs are forced to work for factories or farms making products, some of which are sold in the United Kingdom. Over the past two years, work programmes have been significantly enlarged, with official statistics showing that 2.6 million “surplus rural workers” in Xinjiang were “relocated” within one year—an increase of 46%.

In July, the Government responded to the concerns expressed about both the use of slave labour and the security challenges by announcing that they would be removing Huawei from the UK’s 5G mobile network. UK mobile providers have been banned from buying new Huawei 5G equipment and they will have to remove all its 5G kit by 2027. I think the Government’s decision is the right one, and they have taken notice of the concerns which were raised during the debate in your Lordships’ House. In December, they went on to publish the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy, and I also welcome that.

But the Government have gone further. Last week, Dominic Raab announced more plans to outlaw Chinese imports which can be linked to human rights abuse, and there will be fines and possible sanctions against companies which are connected to slave labour. He told the House of Commons that he had been shocked by, in his words, “the industrial scale” of the forced labour and the concentration camps, saying that he had never again expected to see pictures of people being herded like animals on to trains to take them away from kith and kin to be enslaved and stripped of their humanity. Such echoes from a terrible past have also been heard in reports of human hair taken from the shaved heads of Uighur people being exported to be used in wigs by those who, sadly, seem equally comfortable wearing fashion items made by Uighur slaves.

We await news from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, about how Magnitsky sanctions will be used against senior Chinese Communist Party officials who have overseen these programmes of mass incarceration. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give the House further information about when such action will be taken.

It is instructive that the US Government have already imposed sanctions and restrictions against 48 Chinese companies suspected of using forced labour or providing technical assistance to the suppression system of Xinjiang, described by the US Congress as the

“largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world”.

Adrian Zenz, a leading authority on Xinjiang, estimates that most of today’s cotton in Xinjiang is picked under forced labour conditions and with minimal payment. I particularly pay tribute to the BBC for highlighting this in a documentary recently. Zenz says:

“More than half a million Uyghurs — probably whether they want to or not — are being sent by the state to the fields for three months”.


Brands including Hugo Boss, Adidas, Muji, Uniqlo, Costco, Caterpillar, Lacoste, Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger have been named in reports linking them to Xinjiang factories or materials. One in five cotton products worldwide is made with Xinjiang cotton. To its credit, Marks & Spencer has pledged to stop using any cotton from Xinjiang.

Next week, on Tuesday, the House will be asked to vote again on the all-party genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, which was passed in your Lordships’ House by a formidable majority of 126. In the House of Commons, with the equally formidable support of the former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Nus Ghani Member of Parliament and other senior figures from the Government Benches, it came within 11 votes of achieving a majority. The movers of that amendment in both Houses have listened to constructive suggestions and have modified the amendment, which now stands in lieu and is on our Marshalled List.

There is no greater abuse of human rights than genocide: it is the crime above all crimes. No other word adequately describes a state complicit in the destruction of a people’s identity; complicit in mass surveillance; complicit in forced labour and enforced slavery; complicit in the uprooting of people, the destruction of communities and families, the prevention of births, and the ruination of cemeteries where generations of loved ones had been buried. It is the only word to describe a state which seeks to re-educate you so that you will believe that you, your people, your religion and your culture never existed, and the certainty that, through ethno-religious cleansing, you will cease to exist in the future.

Last week, I read the testimony of Sayragul Sauytbay, a woman who escaped from one of the camps. She said:

“Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons. There were prisoners who were made to sit on a chair of nails. I saw people return … covered in blood. Some came back without fingernails.”


One elderly woman’s skin had been flayed. She said:

“Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons”,


and that prisoners are used for medical experiments:

“Some of the men become sterile. Women are routinely raped.”


On the same day that the House of Commons voted on the genocide amendment from your Lordships’ House, the incoming and outgoing US Administrations both declared events in Xinjiang to be a genocide. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at his confirmation hearing in the US Senate that:

“On the Uyghurs I think we’re very much in agreement. And the forcing of men, women and children into concentration camps, trying to, in effect, re-educate them to be adherents to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the way she set out the case to the House. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, she talked a little more about digital supply chain transparency. Given that this falls within her departmental brief, can she explain whether it will be within the security Bill that will come forward, so that it can be part of the discussion that takes place on that Bill? Also, will she share the wording of the two amendments she referred to in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, with the House so that Members can decide whether there are things that we would like to test on the Table Office, to see whether they could be brought into scope?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s second point, I will have to defer to colleagues about the ability to do that. In relation to the supply chain, my understanding is that that work is complementary to the security Bill rather than directly within it. Again, I am happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I promised the House that I would listen carefully to noble Lords’ contributions. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, that we would not have been having this debate if the amendment had not been in scope, so this amendment is in scope. The problem for the Government has been being able to get an amendment in scope to deal with the human rights issue. I recognise that the problem is that this is not a tree on which you can very easily hang new limbs. The Bill was therefore an opportunity, rather than necessarily the right piece of legislation, to bring before the House the enormities of what is happening in Xinjiang and the links of state agencies and arms, such as Huawei, to the Chinese Communist Party. That we have done across the Chamber very successfully, and I am grateful to the Government for the moves they have made. I set that out in my remarks at the outset of the debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who has been exemplary in the way she has dealt with the arguments and with individuals, especially difficult, persistent, awkward Members of your Lordships’ House, who do not easily let go on issues of this kind, and I do not think the House would expect us to.

The Minister has been given notice that we will be here again on Tuesday dealing with the extraordinary issue of genocide and what can be done about it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I was puzzled by what the Minister said to the House a few minutes ago. It has always been the position of the Government—not just this Government, but their predecessors as well—that the determination of genocide is a matter for the courts. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said that in the House of Commons only a week ago, and therein lies the problem. If there is not a court mechanism in the United Kingdom to deal with this, we have to rely on international courts, particularly the International Criminal Court, and everyone knows that if you were to take to the Security Council the horrors taking place in Xinjiang, which have been described in your Lordships’ House, the possibility that the People’s Republic of China would refer itself to the International Criminal Court for a criminal investigation is risible.

I am a great supporter of the ICC, which was set up by the Rome statute and a genuine attempt to fill the gap that has always been there since the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, but sadly it has not done so and we still have to address how we can get determinations of genocide made. I think the only way we can do that is now through our own courts. Senior figures from our judiciary have spoken in favour of this. Retired Supreme Court judges, a former Lord Chief Justice and many senior figures in your Lordships’ House with a legal background have said that it is practical and something that our courts can and should do. I hope the House will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said today.

I end by saying two things, one which the Minister will be pleased to hear and the other directed to the House authorities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I find it extraordinary that, under ping-pong arrangements, it is not possible to take part in a debate on something as important as an amendment sent back to your Lordships’ House by the House of Commons on an issue such as genocide without being physically present. To be told that in the same week that we are being told that we should not be here at all unless we really have to be is vexing, to put it mildly. I hope the House authorities will consider that and see whether there is anything that can be done before next Tuesday, as the noble Lord said.

Having made all those points, the Minister will be very pleased to know that it is not now my intention to force this issue to a vote today. I simply thank all those who have taken part in our proceedings. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I say to the House that this is not over yet and there is so much more that can be said and will be said before it can be brought to a resolution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.