Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with his customary thoroughness in opening today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord True, outlined the purpose of this Procurement Bill with its 13 parts, 116 clauses and 11 schedules. We have just heard a very incisive speech from my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, about defence procurement. I will not follow her on that particular line of argument today—I certainly will be interested in amendments later on—but I simply draw to her attention, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord True, the evidence given this morning by Sir Nick Carter, former Chief of the Defence Staff, and expert witnesses on procurement by the Royal Navy to the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which I think will have a bearing on what the noble Baroness has just said to the House.

At the very outset, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for setting aside time to meet on two occasions to discuss the Government’s policy in connection with the procurement of goods made in states credibly accused of genocide and states using slave labour. I particularly welcome what he said at the very outset of the debate, following that Urgent Question earlier on about John Sudworth’s harrowing documentary, which was broadcast by the BBC, documenting the terrible excesses taking place in Xinjiang. He, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, are right that work is being done across both Houses already to bring forward amendments to tackle ethical procurement, slave labour and national resilience. So, although I welcome this Bill, and the intentions which lie behind it—not least the ambition outlined in the Green Paper and in the Explanatory Notes that value for money must always be conditioned by the public good, transparency, integrity, equal treatment and non-discrimination—I would add to that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, added in his remarks, words like “ethical” and “resilience”.

In drawing attention to my non-financial interests in the register, I think the House will not be surprised to learn that, as the Bill proceeds, I would like to return to the purchase of products made by slave labour in terrible conditions by Uighurs in the genocidal state of Xinjiang, which I have pursued as an issue with others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, during the passage of recent legislation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in his place, and it has been a pleasure to work with him too on the Health and Care Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill, the telecommunications Bills and the Trade Bill, in bringing in amendments on this theme.

The very welcome decision of Parliament to insist that the eradication of slavery is a lodestar for the National Health Service procurement is a curtain-raiser for this Bill, and I congratulate the Government on that. Some of these issues are addressed in the—still undebated—report of the International Relations and Defence Committee, published in September last, on China, trade and security, which we subtitled A Strategic Void. This Bill offers an opportunity to fill some of that void, and I would commend the report to the noble Lord, Lord True, as a very good background document to these specific issues.

Essentially, procurement should strengthen national resilience. It should reduce dependency on states which pose risks to our national security. It should protect British manufacturing from competitors that use slave labour, or grossly exploited labour, and send a signal to the private sector that it is simply unethical to buy cheap goods from states where citizens are being subjected to appalling inhumanity, including genocide. After all—this is not hyperbole or some piece of sloganeering or virtue signalling—it is the Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, who has said that a genocide is under way.

A third of all UK public expenditure, around £300 billion a year, is earmarked for public procurement. This is a staggering amount of money, which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was quite right to say —can be used to achieve a great deal of public good. I know the noble Lord well enough to know that he is not lighting a bonfire of 350 regulations simply to create a fertile ground for anarchy. It is a perfectly reasonable public policy objective to try and accelerate and simplify public procurement, but we must use this opportunity to do more than that. I know that the noble Lord shares my strongly held belief that we should tackle the strategic void, the incoherence, and in some quarters the unwillingness to squarely face the threat posed by rising authoritarianism. I am certain that this Bill provides an admirable opportunity to put flesh on the bones.

When it comes to challenging authoritarianism and ridding companies and actors that do their bidding from our procurement supply chain, we are streets behind our Five Eyes partners, like Australia and the bipartisan approach now being evidenced in the United States. We must better co-ordinate procurement policies with our allies. Let me give just two examples. Two years ago, the US Government blacklisted Hikvision and Dahua Technology from their procurement supply chain and, alongside Australia, has actively been removing Chinese cameras and technology from sensitive government buildings.

Since January 2020, on 25 occasions in speeches and questions in this House, I have raised the UK’s decision to procure 1 million Hikvision cameras. Yet we continue to use them in government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts and schools. I am told that they may even be bought and placed alongside the entire length of HS2—perhaps the Minister could tell us if that is indeed the case. A negligent procurement policy means that we will ultimately end up stripping them out, as we did with Huawei, at huge public cost.

Last week, IPVM, the world’s leading video surveillance information source, released a 32-page white paper on Hikvision. It noted that the company has been

“contracted to design, implement, and directly operate Xinjiang surveillance”

as part of the network of concentration camps where over a million Uighur Muslims are detained until 2040. Hikvision even actively collaborates with the Chinese Government as a co-author of national and provincial standards of surveillance and the development of cameras that target Uighurs. More than 42% of Hikvision is owned by the Chinese state. During the first half of 2021, the company received RMB 223 million in state subsidies, and its chairman, Chen Zongnian, is a member of the National People’s Congress.

I believe the Government privately recognise the threat posed by Hikvision and Dahua Technology, and I welcome the steps taken by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Sajid Javid, who acted recently to remove their cameras and technology from his department. What is needed is a cross-departmental strategy to remove cameras not only from government departments but from the UK procurement supply chains as a whole. In a letter to the Cabinet Secretary dated 21 April, Professor Fraser Sampson, the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, said he was

“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.

Will the Minister undertake to share his own department’s response to that letter from Professor Sampson, and will he explain why, if this is the right thing to do in one department, is it not right to do it across government? It cannot be right that the domestic surveillance market is dominated by a Chinese company which is complicit in genocide and has been blacklisted by our closest partner, and yet is able to use state subsidies to undercut its competitors.

On 2 February, in a debate on a Motion to Regret, I set out at length the arguments about Hikvision, and pointed out:

“In the 1940s, we did not allow the widespread use of IBM’s machines, or other tools of genocide used in Nazi Germany and manufactured by slave labour in factories and concentration camps, to be sold in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 987.]


This Procurement Bill should set a bar as high as that. Mass surveillance systems have always been the handmaiden of fascism. The Government should come forward with a timetable to remove these cameras and technology from the public sector supply chain, and campaign to encourage and support businesses in the private sector to do the same. We simply cannot allow the tools of genocide to continue to be used so readily in our daily lives.

My second and very brief point concerns resilience and dependency. I have regularly raised my concerns about the potential sale of Newport Wafer Fab, the country’s biggest producer of semiconductors and microchips, to a company with links to China and, inevitably, the CCP. We will always be purchasers of microchips and semiconductors; perhaps the Minister can tell us how many contracts it has had over the past 10 years with the Ministry of Defence, and their worth —and it is particularly helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place to help him with that response. What is more, there is an urgent need for a strategic, joined-up and coherent approach.

To conclude, I hope the Minister will consider amending Part 2 of the Bill to include a duty to have regard to national resilience, and to reduce dependency on states with interests that are hostile to those of the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, I have pointed regularly to the £10 billion we have spent with China on 1 billion items of PPE. That amount is about the size of our entire reduced budget for our overseas aid programme. A duty to have regard to national resilience might be a good way of challenging this.

I thank Minister for his courtesy and his time in meeting to discuss these issues and I look forward to participating during the passage of this important and timely Bill.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 18th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 449A tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I support the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has just spoken. Amendment 449A covers much the same ground as his Amendment 449, but it probably goes a bit further in arguing for the need for transparency. It relates to public service contractors and where information about them should be available under FoI.

The Bill’s disclosure provisions are very limited in comparison with what would be available under FoI. Authorities responsible for contracts worth over £200 million would be required to set and publish key performance indicators, but they do not give the same information, there is a delay of probably up to one year in them and they do not help members of the public and others who might be interested in getting the information.

The amendment sets out that the FoI Act should be extended to cover information held by public sector contractors about these contracts. At present, it allows access to such information only if it is held on behalf of the commissioning authority, which normally applies only where the contract specifically entitles the authority to obtain particular information from the contractor. Where it does not, the information held by the contractor is outside the scope of FoI provisions.

There are many examples of this. Some of those cited by my noble friend probably also apply here but I shall mention one or two others. The first is a report on potential fire safety defects at Hereford County Hospital, constructed and managed under a PFI scheme by Mercia Healthcare Ltd under an agreement with the NHS trust. The report was commissioned by Mercia Healthcare from the now-defunct contractor Carillion, which was still operating at the time. The request to the trust for information about this was refused on the grounds that the report was not held by or on behalf of the trust. There are many such examples. I could explain at length some of the contracts that HS2 has got into; I shall not, but the same comments apply. There is a complete lack of transparency about information on that.

The extension to cover information held by contractors about contracts with public authorities has been supported by the Information Commissioner, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, set up by the Government to review the FoI Act in 2015, and the Institute for Government. There are many other examples from around the world where transparency is thought necessary and desirable. I believe the UK FoI provisions should be extended to allow access to such information via a request to the public authority responsible for the contract.

While I am on my feet and while we are talking about transparency, I should like to ask the Minister about a Written Statement giving guidance to Ministers participating in government commercial activity. It comes from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency and says that the Bill we are discussing

“creates a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. Ministers have the opportunity to participate fully in this system with certain safeguards to protect them from the risk of legal challenge.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/22; col. 17WS.]

I could add that it does not protect the taxpayer and does not seem to protect anybody from the Minister making lots of money out of NHS contracts, as we have heard. It is odd that this Statement has come out in the middle of our deliberations on this Bill. Could the Minister explain when we can see the guidance—I have asked the Library and it does not have it yet—and how it fits in with the Bill we are discussing?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 449 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 449A from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clement-Jones, which deal with transparency. The Minister will not be surprised that I will use this opportunity to raise the blocking of information about the purchase of Hikvision cameras, which are used all over the United Kingdom; he was good enough to meet me twice to discuss this and I am very grateful to him for the time he gave. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this in a Motion to Regret debate in February. I raised it at Second Reading, quoting the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, who said he was

“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.

I asked the Minister at the time whether he would be willing to share his own department’s response to that letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, and to explain why, if it was the right thing to do in the case of the Department of Health—and I believe it was the right thing to do—to give information to Members of Parliament in parliamentary Questions, which it was, because the Minister answered Questions from me specifically on this on 25 and 26 May, it was not possible on security grounds to give the same answers it was possible to give in connection with the Department of Health.

Even more relevant, in conjunction with these amendments, is the fact that only last week the information requested in a freedom of information request about Hikvision in connection with HS2—which I will come back to—was denied. That raises quite a lot of serious problems, I think, in the minds of any member of the public, let alone parliamentarians anxious to discover the truth about why particular things are being ordered, how much they cost, whether they pose security risks and what the dangers are to the United Kingdom.

I think we have a serious problem in our procurement supply chain when it comes to the problem of Chinese technology companies—blacklisted, I might add, by a Five Eyes ally, the United States, as a threat to national security and yet allowed in the United Kingdom —who are known for their complicity in human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang against Uighurs, and I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs. When I met the noble Lord to discuss the legislation before us, he noted that there are over 1 million Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras in the United Kingdom —I repeat, over 1 million. The noble Lord outlined that the Government do indeed have concerns regarding the security of these cameras and their links to the concentration camps in Xinjiang.

Now as many will be aware, a number of civil society organisations, including Free Tibet and Big Brother Watch—through freedom of information requests —have found that a number of government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, schools, police forces, job centres and prisons use cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and by Hikvision. What is not clear is the extent of the issue across the public procurement supply chain, and that is why these amendments are so important.

I have asked the Cabinet Office how many departments have cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and Hikvision and, as I have explained, Ministers—with the exception of the Department of Health—have refused to reply. I welcome the decision made by the former Secretary of State at the Department of Health to commit to removing Hikvision cameras from his department, but when will we have a timetable for other departments to follow suit? How can we justify doing one thing on national security grounds in one department and not elsewhere?

I have asked Ministers how many of these cameras are at UK ports, airports and train stations and, again, I have been rebuffed on the grounds that the Government will not speculate on the security provisions on our transport network. When you apply through freedom of information requests for that information, it is declined. So, sadly, the debate around the use of Hikvision and Dahua in our public procurement supply chain is shrouded in secrecy. I hope Ministers unwilling to be transparent about the issues that we have faced hitherto will see that they are wrong to have been so and will remedy that.

Nowhere is this issue more evident than when I was recently approached by a concerned party who had reported to me that Hikvision may have received a contract from HS2 to install its cameras along the entire length of this new high-speed rail network. Following this information, I submitted a freedom of information request to HS2 asking for information on whether Hikvision has any contracts with HS2, and I was informed that HS2 does not centrally hold information regarding contracts with its suppliers. This is clearly an unacceptable state of affairs. Phase 1 of HS2 is to cost taxpayers—and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am sure will correct me if I am underestimating this—some £44.6 billion, and that includes substantial procurement contracts. It is well within the public interest to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not going to Chinese technology companies that have been accused of complicity in gross human rights violations and the use of forced labour—slave labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not rising sooner; I never know how many spokesmen are going to rise from the various Benches. This has been another interesting and informative debate. It has also been extremely wide-ranging, as has become our custom in this Committee. I will try to answer as many points as possible, but there are things coming from various areas that we will look at carefully. This is your Lordships’ Committee and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for points to be made. My aspiration is to answer, but I may not be able to answer them all.

Before I get on to the main amendments, I will address various things I was asked about. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the Palantir contract. I am advised that this is a DHSC NHS contract. I am not informed in my department of the details she asked for, but I will ask my officials to follow up and respond to her later.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about a Written Ministerial Statement made last week. The timing of the publication of the participation in government commercial activity guidelines for Ministers referred to in that Statement is not connected to this Bill. The guidance sets out how Ministers can be appropriately involved in commercial activity, including procurements, under the current procurement rules.

I was anticipating in a later group—indeed, there are some relevant amendments—a debate about Hikvision. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, as well as for the opportunity to speak to him about this matter, which, as he said, has some security considerations. So far as the actuality of what might or could happen is concerned—that is a potential rather than a loaded spin on it—it is ultimately up to contracting authorities to apply the grounds for exclusion under this Bill on a contract-by-contract basis. The national security ground is discretionary, meaning that authorities can take into account a range of factors, including the nature of the contract being tendered. However, the debarment regime will allow for the central consideration of suppliers on the grounds of national security. As the noble Lord knows, the Government’s security group is working with the National Technical Authority and the Government Commercial Function on the government security aspects of this issue.

I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience, given the sensitivities of the issue. Policy options are being worked out for how to mitigate the security risks posed by this type of equipment; they range from primary legislation to ban certain companies from the government supply chain to issuing more advice and guidance for contracting authorities. The Cabinet Office has also published guidance setting out the steps that all government departments must take to identify and mitigate modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial lifecycle, focusing on the areas of highest risk. We may well return to this issue in debate on a later group, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he raised are ones that the Government are not minimising but currently considering.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Without pre-empting our debate later in the Committee’s proceedings, is he in a position now to respond to the letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, which I referred to in my remarks earlier? If not, could that correspondence be made available to your Lordships between now and Report?

Also, has the Minister had a chance to look at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s report, which called for a total prohibition of Hikvision, and the decision not just of the United States Administration but of the European Parliament to ban Hikvision from their public procurement policies? Given the national security implications, as he said—earlier, I referred specifically to the suggestion that HS2 might procure and use Hikvision cameras on the whole of its new network—does the noble Lord not agree that this is something on which we should shine more light rather more urgently?

[Lord True (Con)]

Perish the thought that I might comment on the shelf life of HS2, but I do take what the noble Lord says very seriously. The fact is that some of the factors he mentions are taken into consideration. This issue is live. I accept his chiding. I will look carefully at his words and at what he has asked to be published or not published, but I hope that we may get a resolution of this matter, because I understand the demand, the request and the desire for a clear and public solution to the points put forward by the noble Lord. We will see what we can do, if not before the next group then certainly before we come back to this issue on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 448, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, was the amendment on which Hikvision was mentioned. I am advised that in relation to the specific letter to the Cabinet Secretary, we cannot publish it at this stage but, repeating what I have said, we cannot comment on security arrangements on the government estate. As I said, these are matters under consideration.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I hope he will go back to the original statement to reflect further on whether this information could be published. This was an open letter from Professor Sampson that was published—it appeared in the national newspapers that the letter had been sent to the Cabinet Secretary—and I would have thought that most of the issues raised in that letter are things to which Members of your Lordships’ House should certainly be privy.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have given further information. The noble Lord referred to a whole range of factors which he asked to be considered and asked me to respond to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report and so on. I said I would reflect on all he has said and come back, but I gather there has been some reflection on this aspect of his menu. We will no doubt maintain this dialogue.

The amendments we were talking about—Amendments 448, 449 and 449A—all relate to freedom of information and seek to bring external suppliers into the scope of the Act. In practice, the Government do not believe that the amendment would add much and could impose burdens on businesses that would make public contracts unattractive. The public authority will already hold all the details of the tendering process and the resulting contracts, and that information can already be requested under the FoI Act. The desire has been expressed in some quarters to reform the FoI Act, but we are looking at the proposals before us.

Furthermore, information held by a supplier or subcontractor on behalf of a contracting authority is already within scope of the Act. The amendments also introduce unhelpful limitations on the ability of contracting authorities to withhold commercially confidential information. This is a point of debate, but the FoI Act sets out the duties on public bodies when they receive requests for information under the Act. Restating the operation of that legislation is not necessary in this Bill. The Bill sets out in detail what information is required to be published and the triggers for publication, as well as requiring contracting authorities to explain why they are withholding any data.

Amendment 449A also seeks to extend the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to suppliers and subcontractors and open them up to criminal prosecution. The Information Commissioner already has enforcement powers in relation to public authorities and therefore in relation to the information held by others on their behalf. We believe that transparency is a sanction for authorities that fail to fulfil their obligations to publish as the failure will be obvious to the public. Failure to publish information required by the Act could be subject to judicial review, and there is also potential for a civil claim for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Clause 89 if the supplier can demonstrate that it suffered loss or damage arising from a breach of a publication obligation. Additionally, an appropriate authority has a power under Clauses 96 to 98 to investigate a contracting authority’s compliance with the Act, make recommendations and, if appropriate, provide statutory guidance to share lessons learned as a result of the investigation. Recommendations issued under Clause 97 come with a duty on the contracting authority to have regard to those recommendations when considering how to comply with the Act, and failure to do so would also leave the contracting authority open to judicial review.

Where a contracting authority is required to publish something that includes sensitive commercial information, it may withhold or redact that information only if there is an “overriding public interest” in doing so. Where the commercial confidentiality exemption is used to withhold or redact information, this must be publicly recorded. As such, there will be full transparency about what has been withheld and why, and interested parties can always challenge such decisions by requesting the withheld information under FoI law. This process is subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. Interested parties can also complain to the procurement review unit, which we discussed the other day.

Amendments 450 and 451 are from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox. They are absent, and I send them best wishes for their respective aliments. Expertus dico: I have just had an aliment as noble Lords saw in the last Session, and I very much feel for all noble Lords. These amendments would make it harder for contracting authorities to withhold information in instances where there is sensitive commercial content. The overall result could be the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or fear of such disclosure, both of which are likely to have a chilling effect on suppliers bidding if they cannot be confident that their commercial secrets will be respected by contracting authorities. This could lead to a reduction in choice, quality and value.

Amendment 452, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Boycott, and Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—which I think is intended to address the central digital platform, not the data on the supplier registration system—propose to introduce various requirements about the accessibility of published information and how it is licensed. The Government have already committed to a publicly available digital platform which will allow citizens to understand authorities’ procurement decisions. This data will be freely available. It will remain subject to data protection law and redaction under the exemptions set out in Clause 85.

However, not all information should be published on the central digital platform. For example, some associated tender documents produced under Clause 20 in certain procurement exercises may need to be circulated to only a limited group of suppliers, for instance, where that information is sensitive. As set out in the Green Paper, we will apply the open contracting data standard, and specify this in more detail in secondary legislation. Published data will be covered by open government licence where possible; personal data contained on the platform will be available without any licence.

Amendments 452A and 452B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend Clause 86 to ensure that regulations require publication on a single digital platform. These amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already committed to providing this platform.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled Amendment 456, which imposes obligations on an appropriate authority in relation to standards and quality of data on the platform. Clause 86(1)(a) already makes specific provision for regulations to set out both the form and the content of information to be published under the various notices required by the Bill. This power is there to ensure that regulations can establish the very standards and formats that I believe the noble Lord is seeking.

On the noble Lord’s proposed new paragraph (b), a notice is usually a snapshot of a moment in time. Most notices should not be updated after the initial publication and it is the legal responsibility of the contracting authority publishing the information to ensure that it is timely, accurate and complete. The appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland department—will not be in a position to verify all that information, which is why it is the responsibility of the contracting authority.

--- Later in debate ---

The fundamental point is that we all want defence equipment programmes to be successful. We all want our country defended properly. I know that that is what the Government want—this is not a deliberate attempt not to do so—but why is it that continued reviews and resets still reach a position where this is happening? The fundamental point goes back to where I started: why will this Procurement Bill, which includes Clause 6, headed “Defence and security contracts”, and Clause 105, headed “Single source defence contracts” and goes to Schedule 10—it reforms various aspects of this procurement programme—work this time? Why will it be different this time? Why will this Procurement Bill mean that, in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, instead of a report that goes on about improving the performance of major defence equipment contracts, we have a report that asks how the MoD did it and reformed its contracts to ensure not only that there was value for money but that we got the equipment we needed to defend our country?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has made a telling and persuasive case. I hope it will convince the Committee to support the tenor of Amendment 485 in particular; I added my name to it on Friday last. I strongly agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are arguing for in that amendment, specifically on the role of the National Audit Office; it is long overdue.

I want to develop the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a little further for the Committee. Here are some headline points: £4.8 billion has been wasted on cancelled contracts since 2010. Some £5.6 billion has been overspent on MoD projects since 2010, and £71 million spent on unplanned life extensions. Some £2.6 billion has been wasted on write-offs: there are 20 cases of wastage by write-off in the report that was referred to, contributing to some £2.6 billion—or 20% of total wastage—since 2010. Some £64 million has been wasted on admin errors, including £32.6 million in HM Treasury fines almost uniquely imposed on the Ministry of Defence for poor accountancy practices.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the ongoing International Relations and Defence Select Committee inquiry into future defence policies, not least on procurement; indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading on this Bill. Last week, we heard from Professor John Louth, who was the director of RUSI’s defence, industries and society research programme from 2011 to 2019. Today, he is a private sector consultant. He shared several important insights into the peculiarities and particularities of defence procurement, not least the need to work with significant uncertainty, because of the speed with which technology moves, and how to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on value for money and having appropriate flexibility. The committee also explored associated issues, such as whether there is an optimal balance between indigenous development and off-the-shelf purchases in defence procurement; what considerations would have to be made; how the Government would intervene to prioritise them; how much of our defence capability needs to be supplied by the state itself, and what can and should be sourced from private suppliers; and who the legitimate partners are in the UK’s defence enterprise—manifestly not companies owned or controlled by countries such as Russia or China.

It was clear that there were other factors which distort procurement in the case of defence contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, enjoys the sympathy and understanding of this Committee that it is not an easy world in which to operate. Professor Louth suggested to our Select Committee last week that there had been some successes, mainly around innovation. However, when asked about this Bill, specifically the measures before us now, he said:

“I tried to read as much into the Bill as possible. But it proved hard to identify the end state which the Government was looking for”—


the very point the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made. Professor Louth continued:

“Seeing the approach as an attempt to streamline is sensible but we need an Act that identifies the sharing of risk. There are lines and lines of rhetoric; lines and lines of legal reform—some of it incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.”


He saw the Bill and its provisions as a missed opportunity, saying that

“quite often the private sector does things best and mixing it directly with what the state does would help enormously.”

He pointed to a high degree of private wealth that is funding our defence research and emerging capabilities but said we would get more value for money if a combined commitment was identifiable.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to Ajax. During last week’s Select Committee proceedings, I asked Professor Louth about this, to which he replied,

“Ajax has been a disaster.”


As we heard from the noble Lord, in June the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned about the delays to Ajax, a programme which has already been running for 12 years, a point picked up in this admirable amendment about projects that overrun and the costs to the public purse. It said, and I am sure we all agree, that this risks national security and compromises the position of our defences.

Ajax was intended to produce a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army. It has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date and yet it has failed so far to deliver a single deployable vehicle—not one. The vehicles were supposed to enter service in 2017, but Ajax has been subject to what the Commons committee describes as “a litany of failures.” The failures included noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers who were testing the vehicles. As the MoD has been unable to say, even now, when Ajax will enter service, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has any further information on that, whether the safety issues have been resolved and if it is likely that they will ever be resolved.

Last week, I reminded our Select Committee that the Public Accounts Committee says the programme has been “flawed from the outset”, but also said it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the MoD had

“once again made fundamental mistakes”

in the planning and management of a major defence programme. Pulling no punches, it accused the Ministry of Defence of “failing to deliver” vehicles which the Armed Forces need to

“better protect the nation and meet … NATO commitments.”

In the current situation, with one eye eastwards on Ukraine, this is a very serious statement by a senior committee of this Parliament.

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, spelled it out in these terms:

“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”


Some 324 hulls for Ajax-family vehicles have been built, along with 74 turrets, and 26 vehicles have been handed over to the Army for training purposes. The PAC report points to “operational compromises” which the Army has been forced to make, which include the prolonging of the use of ageing Warrior armoured vehicles which came into service back in 1987 and are expensive to maintain.

In total, the contract with General Dynamics is worth £5.5 billion, and the PAC says that it doubts whether the programme can be delivered within existing arrangements. We have a duty to make a forensic examination of what Professor Louth told us in the International Relations and Defence Committee last week has been a “disaster” and what lessons might be applied via this Bill, especially lessons about poor project management and inadequate contract performance, soaring costs and lengthy delays even before contacts were signed.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the same issues have been raised again and again in various attempts to reform procurement. This has all been at great cost to the public purse and, as I have argued, at a risk to our national security. This Bill should be much clearer about how it intends to put flesh on the bones of a strategic relationship with industry, focusing on delivery within the budget and on time. What a pity it is that this Bill is not in draft before both Houses, being examined by parliamentarians during pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than being placed in the context of the many other diverse issues that we have been considering.

In conclusion, Ajax was a heroic figure from Homer’s Iliad. Apart from Agamemnon, he was the only principal character who received no substantial assistance from any of the gods—perhaps they will come to the aid of the Minister today. She can at least be heartened that Poseidon struck Ajax with his staff, renewed his strength and joined in Ajax’s prayer to Zeus to remove the fog of battle to see more clearly the light of day. I have no doubt that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, will do precisely that. I hope we will lift the fog and support these amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.

One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.

The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I am endeavouring, my Lords, not to tip my water down the back of my noble friend’s neck, although he might welcome that refreshment.

First, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am in no doubt about the genuine interest which your Lordships have in defence. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, articulately expressed that, and I respect that. I thank him for the way in which he expressed his sentiments. I know that he speaks for the other contributors to the debate.

I shall try to address the principal points which have come up, so I want in the first instance to address Amendments 101 and 485 and then proceed to speak to the government amendments in the group, Amendments 520 to 526 inclusive. As I have said, I shall endeavour to address the issues which have been raised.

I turn to Amendments 101 and 485, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and, in relation to Amendment 485, also by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They relate specifically to defence and security contracts and Ministry of Defence procurement.

Amendment 101 would require a contracting authority to disregard any tender from a supplier which is not a supplier from the United Kingdom or a treaty state or which intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of a contract to such a supplier unless there is no other tender that satisfies all the award criteria. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is laudable, but I will explain why I think this amendment is neither necessary nor indeed desirable.

The Bill already provides a discretion for the contracting authority to exclude from procurements suppliers that are not treaty state suppliers and extends this to the subcontracting of all or part of the performance of the contract to such suppliers. This includes defence and security procurements. It is important to note that, for the majority of defence and security procurement, market access is guaranteed only to suppliers from the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. For those procurements, a supplier established in another country would not be a “treaty state supplier”.

However, due to the nature of defence procurement and the defence market, a discretion to go outside of UK suppliers or treaty state suppliers is required where doing so would best meet the requirement that the contract is to serve—there may be an immediacy about that—and would offer best value for money. Further, to exclude non-treaty state subcontractors would probably make some defence and security procurement much less effective and, in some cases inoperable, as it would exclude, for example, suppliers from the United States, Australia, France, Sweden or Canada from the supply chain.

I assure noble Lords that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given case-by-case consideration—that is already how we conduct business—taking into account various factors, including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before we decide the correct approach to through-life acquisition of any given capability. Where, for national security reasons, we need industrial capability to be provided onshore or where we need to exclude a particular supplier on national security grounds, we will not hesitate to make that a requirement.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the specific matter of fleet solid support ships. He will be aware that in the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy there is specific reference to the fleet solid support ships. The procurement is in train; the first ship is scheduled to enter into service in 2028 and the last in 2032. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the matter is under active consideration.

I turn now to Amendment 485. In a sense, this amendment was preceded by a general observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In essence it was: what difference does this make? That is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. I would say that the Bill provides greater flexibility to the MoD and includes the use of a single system to encourage participation by small and medium-sized enterprises. That is an area not just of significance to the economy but of particular significance to such smaller entrepreneurial organisations. They have sometimes felt out in the cold when major contracts were being awarded by the MoD, principally because, traditionally, the structure was to have a very large primary contractor, with the primary contractor subcontracting various aspects. This is designed to encourage greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, which I think is to be applauded.

MoD derogations, and the Bill itself, provide more flexibility to deliver the defence industrial strategy—I will not rehearse that; your Lordships are familiar with it, but I think it is a very positive strategy and one which I think received support from across the Chamber. That strategy replaces the previous defence procurement policy of defaulting to international competition. I know that was of concern to many of your Lordships and, as I say, the strategy has altered that, and I think that is important reassurance on where we are in defence and the greater flexibility we now have. That is why I said earlier that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given much more case-by-case consideration, taking into account the various factors which I previously mentioned.

Amendment 485 would require the Ministry of Defence to commission a report from the National Audit Office setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of pre-paid services, cancellation or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. I would suggest the amendment is unnecessary, as what it seeks to achieve is already being delivered through existing processes or initiatives; let me explain what these are.

The National Audit Office already conducts regular audits across defence, which we know to our discomfort because the National Audit Office is an independent entity in that it does not spare its comments when it comes to the MoD, and that is right—that is exactly what it is there to do. In these audits, it regularly includes recommendations for improvement to which we pay very close attention. These include value-for-money studies, such as the yearly audit on the defence equipment plan, regular audits on defence programmes such as Ajax—which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—and carrier strike, as well as financial audits. As I say, MoD pays close attention to what the NAO says.

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority also publishes an annual report. That tracks progress of projects currently in the Government Major Projects Portfolio and it provides an analysis of how they are performing. The MoD has successfully introduced several initiatives following on from such recommendations to improve capability and deliver and obtain better value for money, including the defence and security industrial strategy, the defence and security 2025 strategy and the introduction of the Single Source Contracts Regulations 2014.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. On the question of the National Audit Office, I was wondering whether the Minister could tell us whether there had been any formal discussions between her department and the NAO about whether something more formalised—as anticipated in the amendment before your Lordships—would be beneficial. If not, might she consider having such a discussion before we return to this issue on Report?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

What I think is important is that we accord the National Audit Office the absolutely critical character of independence, which is necessary for it to do the job it does. I think that part of that independence is that it is quite separate from government departments, and, with the greatest respect, I think that is what the MoD should not be doing. The National Audit Office should be saying, “If we think you’ve got dirt lying under the carpet, we’re going to rip the carpet up and have a look at the dirt”, and I think that is the freedom we expect the National Audit Office to have and that is the freedom it has got. As I say, everyone, I think, will understand that the Ministry of Defence knows well the feeling of being on the receiving end of a National Audit Office report which makes uncomfortable reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott and to associate myself with the remarks she has just made, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made an important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee this afternoon. We will all be interested to hear how his meeting with the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg goes on Wednesday.

I shall speak to Amendments 331 and 353. Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, deals with serious human rights abuses. When the Minister responds I hope he will bear in mind the very helpful conversations he and I had when he agreed to meet me to discuss modern-day slavery and genocide. I should mention that I am a trustee of the anti-modern-day-slavery charity the Arise Foundation and a patron of Coalition for Genocide Response.

It concerns me that the word “genocide” has been put in a list that simply states that

“‘serious human rights abuses’ includes, but is not limited to”,

and then sets out a list from (a) to (f). It is not that any of these things are minor questions. Winston Churchill said that the horrors committed during the Nazi regime constituted a crime that had no name. It took Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish Polish lawyer, to create the name “genocide” to describe what had been done. Indeed, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide came from that. Your Lordships will recall that the amendments to earlier legislation I moved specifically on the procurement of technology via Huawei and later on the Health and Care Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to, were careful to set aside the word “genocide” from other questions.

I have one specific and, I hope, helpful remark to make to the noble Baroness and others, which is that if this amendment is to be pursued later, perhaps these questions can be separated, because there are many people who would be willing to vote on genocide not only in your Lordships’ House but in another place but who would not be willing to support something that was simply a list of serious human rights violations. I think that some further thought should be given to that.

On Amendment 353 on supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery, I shall try to be brief because I set out some of the arguments about this in our earlier debate about Hikvision and the role that companies such as that have played throughout procurement processes. They are surely what the Bill is dealing with, yet they operate with impunity from their base inside the People’s Republic of China and have been directly associated with the enormities that have been committed in Xinjiang, where it is estimated that more than 1 million Uighurs are held in concentration camps. All of us have read appalling accounts of their treatment, and anything we can do at any stage, we should try to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, is sympathetic to this argument.

Therefore, let me briefly set out some of the arguments that have perhaps been put to him by officials or others who would oppose the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and me. First, will this not have a chilling effect on government procurement? Yes, there will be a chilling effect on government procurement of slave-made goods—and so there should be. Businesses that do not rely on slavery for sourcing have absolutely nothing to fear. The amendment sets the bar low but establishes certain minimum standards. It is noteworthy that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act goes much further than this proposal—I drew it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord True, during our discussions—and there has been no “chilling effect” documented in the USA. I will add that that legislation enjoyed significant bipartisan and bicameral support in the United States.

Secondly, will this not discourage competition and therefore crush markets? No. On the contrary, the amendment will incentivise business to raise its human rights game and encourage competition among entities which meet basic human rights standards. We should be using our purchasing power, this phenomenal amount of money, more than £300 billion, to nudge the business world. This amendment helps us to achieve that. It removes disadvantage for lawful performers, and that is something we should all welcome.

Thirdly, is this not just another anti-China amendment? No. The amendment does not even mention China. Forced labour is a global issue, whether it is exploitation in Brazilian mines or Malaysian tech factories or indeed Uighur slave labour. It is morally imperative that taxpayers’ money does not fund slavery, wherever it is and wherever it is practised.

Fourthly, does this not turn civil servants into police for business supply chains? Civil servants already assess those bidding for government contracts against certain criteria, and that is exactly how it should be. All the amendment seeks to do is to make the criteria more robust. Civil servants generally do not have the resources to inspect supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, probably knows better than any other noble Lord in this Committee, assessing what is going on in a supply chain is an extraordinarily complex, time-consuming and resource-ridden process. The amendment recognises that, and seeks instead to provide civil servants with more tools to ensure better anti-slavery standards around disclosure and transparency of sourcing inputs.

I wonder whether the noble Lord has had it put to him that we are presuming the guilt of businesses by blacklisting entire countries or areas. No, the amendment does not presume that a business operating in a particular area is de facto guilty of perpetrating slavery, although this is the assumption of the United States legislation, which imposes a rebuttable presumption. I admit that that is something that I personally favour, but it is not what is in the amendment. In the United States, that targets goods produced in the Uighur region because it is assumed that they are tainted.

I was struck that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to that word when discussing earlier legislation the House passed, the Health and Care Act, which includes the word “tainted”. I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that that legislation was strengthened by civil servants from his department, who gave advice to the Department of Health. It would be absurd to have legislation that applies purely to the National Health Service, despite the fact that we spent £10 billion on PPE, but does not apply to other departments. You cannot have legislation, especially a procurement Bill, which is weaker than legislation already on the statute book. The amendment merely requires that the origins of goods and their constituent parts are disclosed.

What difference will this really make? Do we need more regulation? The Health and Care Bill was amended precisely because there was acceptance—the Government knew—that the existing regulation was not strong enough. It is to the credit of Sajid Javid that he recognised that and did something about it. The Government are widely suspected of procuring goods and services that may be tainted with slavery. In 2020, the Daily Telegraph reported that, for one contract alone, £150 million of PPE originated in factories in the Uighur region with a documented slavery problem. If stronger standards are good enough for the Department of Health and Social Care, they are surely strong enough for the whole of government, and this Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it.

Finally, it is often said, “Not this Bill, not this time. There is a modern slavery Bill coming; why can we not just wait for that?” The amendment before your Lordships addresses government procurement and this is the Procurement Bill. It is entirely appropriate that an amendment seeking to improve certain standards regarding government procurement should be debated during the passage of this Bill. Moreover, we do not know what is likely to be in the modern slavery Bill; we were told a lot about it during the course of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which pre-empted its provisions then, but we still do not know what will be in it—and, after all, we are in the midst of a change of Government.

Engagement with the Government and this Secretary of State has been good and, as I finish, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his patience in putting up with representations constantly being made to him on this subject. But there is no guarantee that will continue. While Ministers smile on these efforts, we are keen to make the progress we can now, while Ministers such as the noble Lord are in place.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have two small amendments in this group, Amendments 330 and 332. I must say that this group contains far too many issues to be debated effectively. My own are minor, so I did not degroup them, but I hope that in future other noble Lords will exercise their right to degroup so that we have sensible groupings to enable a proper Committee debate. I will probably get into trouble with my Chief Whip for encouraging noble Lords in this direction, because I think there is a view that large groupings are more efficient. However, I do not believe that; I believe in effective scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 330 probes the relationship between the mandatory exclusion of suppliers for improper behaviour in Clause 30 and the discretionary exclusion found in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7. I do not understand why the Bill has to have improper behaviour as an exclusion ground dealt with in two places. The definition of “improper behaviour” is virtually identical in each case, and they certainly seem to be aimed at the same behaviour. The processes are very similar, with rights given to suppliers in both cases, and they are both aimed at exclusion decisions. There are wording differences between the two parts of the Bill, but I cannot see anything of substance involved. It just looks as if two parliamentary draftsmen have been involved in different bits of the Bill and they have not known what was going on in the other bit.

Schedule 7 requires only that the decision-maker—which is usually the contracting authority, as in Clause 30—“considers” that there is improper behaviour, while Clause 30 requires a determination. However, in this context, I cannot believe that that is a distinction with any real difference attached to it. The main difference of substance is that Clause 30 results in mandatory exclusion, while paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 does not necessarily lead to exclusion. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain the subtleties of why improper behaviour has been dealt with in this way. My own view is that it would be easier to understand if Clause 30 were placed in the Schedules 6 and 7 structure of the Bill, since it deals with exclusion, and could have options of mandatory or discretionary exclusion. I certainly look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment 332 is slightly different; it concerns paragraph 16 of Schedule 7, which itself sets out exclusions from the discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7. Under paragraph 16(4), there are four exclusions from some of the Schedule 7 things which have happened before the schedule came into force. It is my understanding that the existing procurement rules already contain three of the grounds for exclusion. So it does not seem logical that, when we shift to this new Procurement Bill, we disregard things that happened in the past that were exclusion grounds because they happened before the Act came into force—it seems to be an unnecessary discontinuity.

I believe that the new ground is “national security”, under paragraph 16(4)(d). For that, it is probably reasonable to disregard behaviour that occurred prior to the Act coming into force. I invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the logic behind paragraph 16(4).

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this amendment is very different from my first two. None the less, we are seeking here to use procurement legislation to advance government policy in relation to the awful practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. The practice was found by the China Tribunal—as advised by Edward Fitzgerald KC, who provided expert legal opinion to it—to be a crime against humanity and part of a possible genocide against Falun Gong.

Forced organ harvesting in China involves the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transportation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China, with the Chinese Communist Party targeting individuals because of their religious and spiritual beliefs or ethnicity. The victims are known primarily to be Falun Gong practitioners, but more recent evidence indicates that Uighur Muslims are also targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several lines of evidence showing that Tibetan and house Christians are likely victims of forced organ harvesting.

Regarding Uighurs and other minorities, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published its report on Xinjiang in August, stating:

“Allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence.”


It also stated that the treatment of Uighurs and others in Xinjiang by the Chinese Communist Party

“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

That is a most important and profound statement, made only three months ago.

Both Uighur and Falun Gong practitioners are arbitrarily arrested, detained in camps and tortured. They face sexual violence, disappear while in detention and are murdered for their organs, on a vast scale. A study published in April this year in the American Journal of Transplantation investigated whether Chinese transplant surgeons established first that the prisoners are dead, before procuring their hearts and lungs, or whether the cause of death was the organ procurement itself. The study was based on the dead donor rule—the most fundamental ethical rule in organ transplantation. It states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is formally pronounced dead; the procurement of organs must not cause the donor’s death.

The paper, entitled Execution by Organ Procurement: Breaching the Dead Donor Rule in China, was written by Matthew Robertson and Dr Jacob Lavee. Dr Lavee is a transplant surgeon and the founder and a former director of the heart surgery unit at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. In 2005, a patient told him that his insurance company had scheduled a heart transplant operation for him that would take place in two weeks. The patient flew to China and received the heart as arranged. That would be impossible unless the time of death of the donor was known in advance. Following this incident, Dr Lavee spearheaded the organ transplantation law in Israel, the first of its kind in the world, which prevented insurance companies from reimbursing expenses associated with illicitly obtained organs. Along with a range of reforms encouraging domestic donation, this stopped the China-to-Israel organ-trafficking pipeline in its tracks.

During this recent research, Robertson and Lavee found, in 71 different Chinese medical studies published between 1980 and 2015, sourced from 56 hospitals in 33 cities, that brain death could not properly have been declared. Therefore, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the cause of the donor’s death. The authors state in a recent article in the Tablet,

“the act of execution was joined with the act of heart removal, and was carried out by surgeons on the operating table.”

Just think of that.

My amendment is designed to exclude suppliers located in a country at high risk of forced organ harvesting from being awarded a public contract involving any device or equipment intended for use in organ transplant medicine or activities relating to human tissue or any service or goods relating to organ transplant medicine or activities involving human tissue. Essentially, it would prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in or developed off the back of the forced organ harvesting trade from entering the UK. This includes organ transplant training, such as the training of Chinese organ transplant services, related education and research, as well as organ transplantation equipment.

I have been very encouraged by the Government’s recent willingness to legislate on this issue, such as through my amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill last year, which included consent provisions for imported human tissue for use in medicines; and the amendments to the Health and Care Bill in April this year, prohibiting the commercialisation of organ tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have been huge supporters of this approach and I am glad to see them here today.

These legislative steps have set a good precedent, both in our country and as a signal globally. I emphasise to the Minister that passing amendments such as this into British law is significant internationally. Other countries observe what is happening, and we are part of a global movement to try to get action to stop this reprehensible behaviour.

I am grateful to the Government for their sympathy for our approach, but I want to go further. In April this year, it was stated in a ground-breaking business and human rights legal advisory, written by international law firm Global Rights Compliance, entitled Do No Harm: Mitigating Human Rights Risks when Interacting with International Medical Institutions & Professionals in Transplantation Medicine, that

“medical professionals and institutions who have collaborations with Chinese medical institutions involved in forced organ harvesting face a risk of being charged with complicity in international crimes, including crimes against humanity.”

It goes on to explain that

“aiding and abetting ‘consists of practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime’.”

Prestigious medical institutions, such as the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, are now taking action. In April this year, the society issued a policy that it would no longer accept submissions to its journal or for presentations at its conference related to transplantation and involving either organs or tissue from human donors in the People’s Republic of China. My forced organ harvesting amendment to the Procurement Bill is critical to protect our UK medical professionals and institutions from complicity. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in what was a powerful, disturbing and very thoughtful speech. I think all of us who are privileged to be in the Committee today are indebted to him for that and the way he introduced this group of amendments, to which I am a signatory, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. She sends her apologies for not being able to be physically present today, but she strongly supports the amendment, as does the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. It is worth bearing in mind that both of those noble Lords have held very high office in the medical institutions in this country and it is good that their names are attached either to the amendment or to the arguments that go with it.

I declare interests as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, who the noble Lord referred to, and on Hong Kong, as patron of Hong Kong Watch and as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This amendment deals with a gruesome and barbaric lethal practice that has been prevalent in China. Last Thursday, here in the Moses Room, a debate was held on the International Relations and Defence Select Committee report on China, trade and security. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, was present throughout proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was present and contributed to those proceedings, during the course of which a number of us referred to the levels of trade and, inter alia, the level of procurement that is carried out with China by the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that we have a £40 billion deficit in trade with the People’s Republic of China. That would be reason enough for considering, in the context of resilience and dependency, why procurement policies with a country designated by the Government as recently as last month as “a threat” to the United Kingdom should be radically readdressed. During the debate last Thursday in the Moses Room, I referred to earlier debates in this Committee on the Bill specifically about Hikvision. It is worth recalling that the noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to have several meetings in his office to discuss this, as well as dealing with it at that stage. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, well enough—I congratulate her, as others have done, on her appointment as Minister—to know that she will take this as seriously as he did.

The company Hikvision is responsible for the surveillance cameras in Xinjiang referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. But these cameras were purchased through our procurement policies by great departments of state and are used in local government and by public authorities up and down the length and breadth of this country. These cameras are used to impose the surveillance state on the Uighur Muslims referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

At the conclusion of our debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, promised he would write to me in response to my question specifically about whether, during the next set of proceedings on the Bill—therefore, on Report—the amendments that many of us argued for at earlier stages will be agreed by the Government. I hope that the noble Baroness’s officials will talk to his officials before he writes that letter, so that we genuinely get joined-up government on this.

I hope they will also look at the Biden Administration’s legislation on goods made by slave labour, something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have raised in other legislation and that we both, as well as other members of the Committee, feel very strongly about. They should also look at legislation the Biden Administration introduced called the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which draw together the prioritisations of investing in domestic industry, tackling climate change and reducing dependency on authoritarian regimes. All those things should be done in the context of this Bill.

In parentheses, I remind the Committee that we bought 1 billion—not 1 million, but 1 billion—lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and 24 billion items of personal protective equipment where China was recorded as the country of origin. The cost to the United Kingdom was a staggering £10.9 billion—about the equivalent of our now reduced overseas aid and development budget. This is British taxpayers’ money pouring through our procurements into the pockets of a country that stands accused of the appalling barbarism identified in Amendment 185, and indeed of genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was talking about the international angle and the importance of doing things internationally. I am particularly grateful for the reminder of the need to discuss these issues with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. I will also talk to the FCDO, DHSC and DIT about the UK-China hospital partnership and whether there has been any use of UK Export Finance. I have not been briefed on the issue, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is not in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, if they are content.

Turning to the main issue, I must resist this amendment on a number of counts, which I will explain. First, it treats suppliers as excluded simply for being located in a country at high risk of organ harvesting. This is guilt by association. It would undermine the principle, which runs throughout the exclusions regime, that suppliers can be excluded only where the supplier or a connected person has committed relevant misconduct. This is really important to ensure fairness and proportionality in exclusion decisions. The amendment could also have perverse effects—for example, preventing the NHS procuring life-saving devices in a country, even though they have nothing to do with organ harvesting or people trafficking.

Finally, there is already a provision in the Bill which would allow for the exclusion of suppliers who participate in forced organ harvesting. The Bill is clear that any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to the supplier would meet the discretionary exclusion ground for professional misconduct. It is almost certain that involvement in these practices by suppliers of goods or services related to transplant medicine or human tissue would constitute a breach under the detailed standards set by health sector institutions.

The exclusion ground of professional misconduct is intended precisely to cover all the particular ethical issues that arise in different industries and sectors. That is of course an exclusion we agreed earlier, which merited further discussion. The grounds for exclusion cannot and should not list every issue within a particular industry. I should repeat that the exclusion and debarment regime in the Bill represents a significant overhaul and enhancement of the EU system; we should not forget that.

Finally, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have already promised, in his absence, to write on the subject of the hospital, but I am also of course aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness; I got trapped in the Chamber when the doors were locked at the end of the Division—it serves me right. Some people may wish it had been permanent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and look forward to reading her reply in Hansard.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to getting delayed in the Lobby in the next Division.

I am aware of the concerns regarding Hikvision and other Chinese technology companies; we take these concerns extremely seriously, as the noble Lord knows. We are taking action in the Bill to introduce a new ground for exclusion, specifically to address situations where a supplier poses a threat to national security. The new exclusion ground allows a contracting authority to reject bids from suppliers that the authority considers pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.

It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the contracting authorities. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.

This has been an important debate. I have learned a lot but, for today, I respectfully request that this amendment be withdrawn.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 3 and 17 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. In so doing, I echo what she said about how this Bill is better than the place we started from. Having spoken at Second Reading and in Committee and attended the meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, kindly organised so that we could learn more about the intricacies and granular detail of the Bill, I commend the Government for what they are trying to do. Although, I will give some painful examples to the House in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, just said, I totally exempt the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord True, with whom I had a number of meetings in the run-up to the presentation of this Bill in the House. They have both been exemplary as Ministers.

The noble Baroness and I have been in correspondence over the weekend about some of the points I am about to raise. The reforms outlined by the Government are based on what I think are laudable principles of public procurement set out in the Green Paper. They are value for money, public good, transparency, integrity, equal treatment and non-discrimination. I urge noble Lords to keep them in mind as I proceed through my remarks.

Ministers have told us that streamlined new procedures will mean better commercial outcomes that deliver more value for money for taxpayers. This amendment would ensure that those public interest principles also extend to the National Health Service, as I believe they should. The NHS should not be regarded as a side issue or of little consequence, as it were. It should be within the same remit. In the year before Covid—2018-19—the DHSC spent around £70 billion on procurement in England, up from £68.3 billion in the previous year. Spending on health is far and away the most significant area of government procurement spending. It is more than three times defence spending. Around £18 billion is spent on medicine and, coming to a point that the noble Baroness made in her remarks a few moments ago, nearly £6 billion per year is spent on hospital consumables, which include gloves and syringes.

During Covid, vast sums were spent on procuring PPE. I have made a point regularly in your Lordships’ House, as other noble Lords have done, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, about the kind of PPE that we have been buying from overseas, especially from the People’s Republic of China. The House of Commons Library, in a note published earlier this year, said that current estimates of the total cost of Covid to the Government range from about £310 billion to £410 billion, the equivalent of about £4,600 to about £6,100 per person in the United Kingdom. The portion of this spent by the Department of Health was put at £75.3 billion. Gross spending on public sector procurement increased by £53 billion, or 17%, between 2019 and 2021. Most of this increase was due to a £43 billion increase in health spending—a rise of 44%—and it is estimated that contracts for £14.6 billion were awarded for PPE.

I understand the argument that the Government have made on a number of occasions about the urgency of the public health crisis and that many public procurement procedures were expedited. In some cases, those procedures resulted in suppliers being chosen without the contract being put out to tender or otherwise advertised. I hope that part of the purpose of the Bill is that we have better procedures in place should another pandemic occur. Concern about how this was done led to a debate in the Commons on 21 June 2021 on a petition calling for a public inquiry into government contracts granted during Covid-19. Since the Minister will have seen the outrage in the Commons last week about profiteering from unusable PPE and widespread concern about politically connected companies benefiting from government contracts, I hope she will feel able today to respond to specific questions, some of which I asked in your Lordships’ House in January and March this year, during Committee and Report on the Health and Care Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton referred. I refer the House to col. 635 on 1 January and col. 1032 on 3 March.

Even before that, on 13 December 2021, I asked

“whether any … person, or … organisation, will be censured for defaults involving the 47 VIP public contracts for facemasks and surgical gowns; and what steps they have taken in connection with defaults associated with their contract with PPE MedPro.”

I referred the House to a report in the Daily Telegraph which stated:

“Ministers handed almost £150m to Chinese firms with links to alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang amid a race to PPE after Covid hit.


The Health Department paid £122m to Winner Medical, which uses cotton produced by a supplier that works in the controversial region”.


That is in Xinjiang, where it is said that a million Muslims are incarcerated and where the former Prime Minister, Liz Truss, said that a genocide is under way. It continued:

“Another £19m contract went to pharmaceutical firm China Meheco and £16.5m was paid to Sinopharm, both of which have been linked to labour programmes in the province.”


In Committee I specifically asked about a Guardian report concerning Medpro, and on 19 January I was repeatedly told that details about PPE contracts are “considered commercially sensitive”. I have never been able to understand—this goes right to the heart of the noble Baroness’s amendment—why the Treasury could account for the £4.3 billion lost in fraud under the Covid support scheme but was unable to justify or identify the loss on PPE.

Even worse, I was told, “we have no plans to censure a single individual or organisation”. In January I asked why not, and I ask the same question again today. In January I was told that the Government are seeking to recover moneys paid to PPE Medpro in relation to a contract for the provision of gowns. It would be helpful for the House to know more about the remit of the public inquiry into Covid 19, chaired by my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, and whether it will deal in detail with procurement under the terms of reference, especially in the sections dedicated to preparedness and our economic response.

Perhaps the noble Baroness could establish whether it will examine the concerns raised by the National Audit Office: first, the potential unequal treatment of suppliers in procurement processes; secondly, poor procurement practice due to procuring at speed—for example, retrospective contract awards, a lack of documentation on key procurement decisions and a lack of documentation on the management of potential conflicts of interest; and thirdly, lack of transparency over what contracts were awarded and how. We must not allow the concerns raised by the National Audit Office to happen all over again, and these amendments help us to do that.

But there are continuing challenges which need a response too. I was shocked to learn that we bought £1 billion-worth of lateral flow tests from the People’s Republic of China and spent around £10 billion of taxpayers’ money in the PRC on over 20 million items of PPE. Some 24.1 billion items have a country of origin recorded as China, including 10.7 billion gloves. This raises a lot of questions about dependency—lessons which you might have thought we had learned after Germany’s experiences with Putin—but it also raises questions about national resilience. Why could things such as this not have been manufactured here? Indeed, companies in this country that tried to get contracts, and which are capable of manufacturing these things, have told me that they could not even get into the competitive system because we suspended it. If nothing else, this begs a lot of questions about why such things could not be made in the UK.

I was also shocked to learn—I repeat this because I thought it almost unbelievable until I saw it revealed in a parliamentary reply in another place—that we have a further 120 million items of PPE that are still in China, and which it is costing taxpayers some £770 million each and every single day to keep there. I repeat: £770,000 each and every day to keep them—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The millions and the thousands can multiply very rapidly in this debate. I apologise, but I think you get the point. It is over £20 million in the course of a year—£770,000 each and every single day.

I gave the noble Baroness notice of my intention to ask about this. Who authorised those acquisitions? Who decided that they should stay there? How much has it cost to date to store these items? How much has been budgeted to keep them in store at that cost of £770,000 every day, and for how long will they be stored? How much of the PPE that has been bought has proved to be defective and unusable? I would also like to know, first, how the Government intend to report the money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit. Secondly, individual settlements are protected by commercial secrecy, so how will Parliament and the public be notified about money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to provide transparency and accountability in relation to money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit?

It is clear that the NHS should be subject to far greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability. For all those reasons, I support Amendments 3 and 173 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which include the NHS in the definitions of a public authority for the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When he speaks about the frailty of the NHS supply chain—I must declare my past presidency of the Health Care Supply Association—I am sure he is absolutely right to put these penetrating questions to the Minister.

I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 171 and 172, but I also want to speak to Amendments 3 and 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She has rightly pointed to the potential confusion between two pieces of legislation in relation to the National Health Service and the procurement regime that it is to adopt in the future. The difficulty is compounded because, of course, we have not seen the draft regulations in relation to Clause 111, nor have we seen the draft regulations in relation to the amendment made in the Health and Care Act 2022 to the National Health Service Act 2006, after Section 12ZA. The 2022 Act gave huge powers to Ministers to establish their own procurement regime through regulations.

Clearly, there is every potential for confusion as to how these two sets of legislation are to work together, particularly if only NHS clinical services are to be covered by the disapplication in the Bill. That leaves a lot of questions for those working in the health and social care sectors as to how they are to operate the new processes. Given the nature of NHS commissioning and services, there are big questions about what happens if a contract incorporates clinical and non-clinical services. Under which set of regulations is procurement to be undertaken? Large hospital contracts—PFI contracts—often contain a mixture of clinical and non-clinical services, and the terms of the contract can sometimes last for 20 or more years.

Indeed, the more fundamental question is how we define “clinical services”. Some hospitals contract with private sector operators to provide, say, laboratory services the staff of which are employed by the private sector contractor. I would have called those clinical services; they are clearly directly related to clinical outcomes for patients. I am not at all sure how that is going to be covered by the two separate pieces of legislation. Of course, the NHS Confederation, which represents the bodies that operate the health service at the moment, including integrated care systems and NHS trusts, is obviously concerned about the confusion and potential distinction between the two sets of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think I have been clear on the background to why it is different. I have also promised that regulations and guidance are being put together and will make very clear the differences: where the NHS rules need to apply and where the Procurement Bill needs to apply. That is the way in which these Bills have been constructed together. There are reasons. Especially on small NHS contracts involving social care, clinical services and so on, it clearly makes a great deal of sense to have a separate regime.

I am sure we will come back to that at the end, but out of courtesy I turn to the other amendments. Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, proposes to rework the notion of control in the definition of a contracting authority in amended Clause 1(3)(b), to be consistent with the notion of a controlled person in Schedule 2. We have looked at this again in dialogue with the concerned stakeholders, notably the Local Government Association.

The meaning of control in Clause 1 is different from that in Schedule 2, and they need to be kept separate. The use of “control” in Clause 1, which sets out the contracting authority definition, is intended to ensure that contracting authorities that have a board where public authorities appoint more than half the members are themselves considered to be contracting authorities. This might include, for example, some centralised procurement authorities.

By contrast, the “controlled person” for the purposes of Schedule 2 is much narrower and intentionally very limited as it is intended to capture only a narrow group of entities, closely owned and controlled by contracting authorities. It requires that the controlling contracting authority is a “parent”, within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006. Although this might cover some of the same ground as majority board appointments, the concept used in Clause 1, it is not the same thing, and the text of the amendment can be satisfied in other ways. There is also a secondary activity threshold, which means that 80% of the activities carried out by the controlled person must be on behalf of its controlling authority. I am afraid that neither factor is appropriate to the contracting authority definition and their inclusion would have the effect of taking many organisations outside the scope of the contracting authority definition.

I recognise that, as my noble friend said, consistency is often desirable, but these terms achieve different aims. It is important that the Procurement Bill covers, as closely as possible, the same scope of bodies as in the existing procurement regulations, both for certainty and continuity for our authorities and to ensure compliance with the definition of a contracting authority in our free trade agreements.

I should, in passing, thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her Amendment 190, which reflects discussion in Committee and which the Government are glad to support.

Moving on, I come to some of the very wide points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, although it is possible that some of these will come up again later on Report. It may be disappointing to the noble Lord, but we cannot go into the detail of individual contracts. Where a contract has been found to have underperformed or the PPE provided was not up to standard, the Department of Health and Social Care is working to reach a successful outcome—this includes mediation—for the taxpayer.

Offers for the supply of PPE came from a wide range of people from within government and outside. No matter where they came from, offers went through a robust process of checks and controls led by officials. This included price and quality checks as well as due diligence and credibility. As for Medpro, this is a live issue; we are currently engaged in a mediation process with PPE Medpro and I am therefore unable to comment on the specifics of this contract.

More positively, however, the Covid inquiry will cover procurement and the distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators. In my view, that is quite right. It will also identify the lessons to be learned from all this and inform preparation for future pandemics across the UK.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the Minister; that is a helpful reply and I am indebted to her. She has referred us to later amendments—I think she is referring to the amendment tabled by her noble friend Lady Stroud in the 10th group, on modern day slavery, which I am supporting—but a number of my questions go much wider than that. I would be appreciative if, between now and our discussion on Wednesday, she could give further consideration to what she can answer, some of which is not covered specifically by the point she has just made about confidentiality. Could she touch on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is saying now about how the NHS should be caught under the same terms as everything else that she has been arguing? Our failure to do this has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, and demonstrates an inconsistency in how we handle these things.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 97, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has just introduced, concerning the procurement review unit. I am grateful to the Minister for organising a very helpful meeting recently outlining the Government’s thinking on the role of the PRU. This is not envisaged as a statutory body, so does not currently feature in the Bill, but it will have some important functions relating to SME engagement in public procurement, such as fostering much-needed culture change in the construction sector and promoting SME access through means such as training, transparency and, above all, better payment practices for public contracts.

These include making 30-day payment terms apply throughout the public sector supply chain, with the 30-day period measured from when an invoice is first received rather than when it is deemed valid. Contracting authorities will be required to publish their payment performance every six months. The payment performance review scheme, PPRS, run by the Cabinet Office, which has been underresourced in the past, will be given extra capacity, staffing and weight. The current system, based on reporting the volume of invoices paid within 30 days, can allow late payment of large sums to be drowned out by a high volume of lower-value instant payments. To give a truer picture, I hope the Minister might consider requiring the value of payments made within 30 days to be reported, as well as the volume.

The PRU will also carry out proactive spot checks to assess compliance with payment terms throughout the supply chain. The Minister might explore the possibility of using technology to track payment times, which might ultimately lead to more real-time transparency of payment performance. I understand that many construction firms already use technology to produce their payment reports.

These are all very welcome aspects of the Government’s plans for the procurement review unit. I hope the Minister will put them formally on record in her response, thereby averting, or at least reducing, the need for Amendment 97 to include the PRU in the Bill.

I end by congratulating the Minister on her piece in the Times on Monday confirming her commitment to making it easier for small firms to compete for and win public sector contracts. I hope the Times readership will actively support us in holding her and the Government to that commitment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I can be brief. I thoroughly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said to us in moving his amendment. I do not need to repeat arguments that I placed before your Lordships earlier this week on Monday, in December last year, and then again in January and March this year, and even in the Question that we had just before our proceedings on PPE, which continues to be stored in the People’s Republic of China at a cost to us of some £770,000 every day.

I am extremely grateful that the Minister responded so quickly after our debate on Monday with a letter that I received this morning. For the purposes of the record, I will read out one paragraph. She wrote:

“You made a number of points about PPE contracts which have been found to have underperformed. I also understand you have asked written questions … on these matters. I appreciate your desire for more information on this and I will be writing to the Secretary of State highlighting both your views and those expressed by others in the House.”


That is a very welcome response and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for going to that trouble.

I have sent a copy of our Hansard from Monday to my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, who is chairing the public inquiry to which the Minister referred during our debate on Monday. The Minister said that lessons would be learned, and that the Covid inquiry would

“cover procurement and the distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE”.—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1593.]

I am grateful to her for that.

I have only one other point. On Monday, I raised the issue of repayments. That is not something that can wait for the several years it might take the public inquiry to make its recommendations. I refer the Minister to my two questions about defaulting PPE suppliers and the actions that will be taken through the faulty contract PPE recovery unit. I also asked about individual settlements, which, as she said, are protected by commercial secrecy. I asked

“how will Parliament and the public be notified about money returned to public funds by defaulting PPE suppliers through the actions of the faulty contract PPE recovery unit?”—[Official Report, 28/11/22; col. 1581.]

How will that work? Can the Minister illuminate us a little further? If she cannot, would she be prepared to put pen to paper in a follow-up letter to me as a result of today’s debate? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for giving us the opportunity to explore this issue further.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised such important points about payment terms for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is a long- term issue that has not been addressed. There is a real opportunity here, as the noble Lord outlined.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 72, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who so comprehensively introduced it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I confess that I attached my name to it at the absolute last minute because I expected a rush of Members from around your Lordships’ House doing so. I thought it was important to demonstrate that there was a breadth of support.

I should perhaps warn the Minister that that support appeared to come from the Government Front Bench earlier, when the noble Lord, Lord Markham, responding to the PPE Urgent Question repeat from the other place, said that the earlier procurement

“should not have been on the basis of referrals”.

It would appear that this amendment delivers exactly what the noble Lord said should happen in future. That is a very interesting reflection of what is happening in your Lordships’ House.

Briefly, we know that the Government would like to treat all this as ancient history, but I and, I am sure, other Members of your Lordships’ House have seen that for members of the public this is still a source of very deep anger and concern. This morning I was on Radio 5 Live’s politicians’ panel and a caller raised this issue, albeit in the context of Matt Hancock’s appearance on “I’m a Celebrity”.

There were a couple of powerful letters in the Guardian this week. I do not know either of the correspondents. Dr Tristram Wyatt noted that in 1919, after the First World War, the President of the Board of Trade introduced a profiteering Bill to ensure that profiteering by suppliers would never happen again. In the same paper Dr Jeremy Oliver questioned why all these PPE contracts were not let on a full cost plus margin basis. This is of great concern to the public. I am hearing from all quarters again and again that people are simply saying, “Never again.” What happened in the Covid-19 pandemic with the VIP channel must not be allowed to happen again. This clear, simple amendment delivers just that.

I will also briefly express concern about government Amendment 116. We had an extensive discussion about this in Committee, which I will not revisit, but this appears to be a significant weakening of the protection of public concern about potential conflicts of interest. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of that.

--- Later in debate ---

Last year, the House agreed an amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to include consent provisions for imported human tissue for use in medicines. Earlier this year, we amended the Health and Care Bill to prohibit the commercialism of organ tourism. They may be small steps, but internationally they were regarded as a visible sign of this country’s concern and as significant. I hope that tonight the House will go one step further. A discretionary power is a modest ask of the Minister. I really hope that we can take one small step towards ending these abhorrent practices. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has made a very eloquent, powerful and compelling case for supporting this modest Amendment 91. I am happy to be a signatory to this amendment again.

In Committee, the noble Lord and I, with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked the Government about a hospital being built in China in connection with a British company. I thank the Minister for the parliamentary reply about that hospital, which she gave me on 29 November. But I am concerned to learn that the company involved, International Hospitals Group, has a continuing hospital partnership in the People’s Republic of China.

I draw the House’s attention to the words of the British Medical Association, which describes China as a country where there is

“evidence of medical involvement in the Chinese state’s genocide against Uyghur people”,

and the statement of the China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, which describes the “significant scale” of enforced organ harvesting throughout China, all of which should surely encourage us to think very seriously about what more we can do, as we did on the Health and Care Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. All of us who heard the arguments then went into the Lobbies to support him, and I hope that if it becomes necessary—which I hope it will not—we will do the same tonight.

I am also a signatory to Amendment 141, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. This is an argument, again, that we have had in previous legislation—again in the health Bill—about the use of slave labour in Xinjiang. I draw attention to my being vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. It is an issue that I have raised again and again, and mentioned here again during debates on this Bill on Monday last. I will not try to curtain-raise for the noble Baroness—she is more than capable of doing that for herself.

My purpose, therefore, in rising, is to specifically draw attention to and speak to the cross-party Amendment 94, which is in my name and, not for the first time, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra —to use a phrase the Minister used earlier on. I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is my noble friend in so many respects, and we have joined common forces. Old Chief Whips should stand together on such matters, and I am always pleased to be in the same Lobby as the noble Lord. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has been so formidable, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who again has been formidable on these issues throughout, are also signatories to this amendment.

The amendment would require the Government to set out a timetable. In a way, we have already been given half a cake, and I want again to be grateful to the noble Baroness. She was able to say to me that she accepts the substance of our case, but what she has not been able to accept—I hope we will convince her to do so this evening—is that there should be a timetable determining when we will prevent further surveillance cameras entering the United Kingdom and being placed often in very sensitive positions, as I will describe. This amendment would remove them from the Government’s procurement supply chain where there is established evidence that the supplier has been involved in modern slavery, genocide or crimes against humanity.

It is particularly topical, as we read reports today of the use of surveillance technology in arresting, imprisoning and re-educating protesters caught up in the wave of unrest in China. There are reports in British and American newspapers today about how surveillance technology—some of the very things we are debating in this amendment—has been used to arrest young people, who then have the whole of their personal histories seen through the devices that they own. Some of their friends have been arrested as a result of access to that information and been arraigned in police stations.

As a result of the hangover from the Government’s so-called “golden era” of relations with the PRC, which the Prime Minister said in his Mansion House speech on Monday was over, we have allowed our surveillance and technology supply chain to be dominated by Chinese surveillance companies with credible links to the genocide taking place in the Uighur region. I am not using that word in a rhetorical way. It was a word used by the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Liz Truss; it was her word that “genocide” was under way in Xinjiang. It is a word that Secretary of State Blinken has used in describing events there, and many others have, too.

Both Hikvision and Dahua Technology, two of the companies in question, have been blacklisted in the USA for their links to the internment camps in Xinjiang and their role working hand-in-glove with the CCP to construct the largest authoritarian surveillance state, which has surpassed even George Orwell’s wildest dreams. There is little distinction between these Chinese technology companies and the state that they serve. They not only work on behalf of the PRC but receive generous state subsidies to do so, which allows them to undercut their rivals and dominate the domestic UK market.

It is therefore little surprise that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has attacked any notion of the United Kingdom Government banning the use of Hikvision and Dahua cameras as “unreasonable suppression” of Chinese companies. I appreciate the engagement from Ministers on this topic, from the noble Baroness but also the noble Lord, Lord True, who met with me privately on this matter on a couple of occasions. During one of those meetings, we were told that there are now 1 million—I repeat, 1 million—Hikvision cameras in the United Kingdom alone.

The announcement last week, then, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government are following the example of the Department of Health and Social Care in banning Hikvision cameras from sensitive areas and removing existing cameras from the network, which mirrors the action from the US that I have just referred to, and has just finalised a permanent ban on the sale and import of Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras, is a welcome one. This is an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have raised on the Floor of the House in regret Motions, in months gone by and in previous debates.

Now that the Government have finally recognised the security and human rights concerns of having Hikvision and Dahua cameras in government departments, the question arises: will they commit to a plan for their removal from the public sector supply chain in its entirety? That is what the amendment is about. As the Government will note, successive freedom of information requests from IPVM, Big Brother Watch and Free Tibet, and Parliamentary Questions, have revealed that Hikvision and Dahua are deeply entrenched in our public sector supply chain. Local councils, NHS trusts, schools, prisons, jobcentres and our railway network all have Hikvision and Dahua cameras in their supply chain and their physical infrastructure.

Do we really want the prying eyes of an authoritarian state that has been accused of genocide, and which, as the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, said just last month, is the

“biggest state based threat to our economic security”,

in our schools, hospitals, and local council buildings? Similarly, how can the Government justify public contracts and taxpayers’ money going into companies where there are credible links of complicity in genocide and the internment camps in Xinjiang? This requires more than “robust pragmatism”, whatever that may mean.

The Government urgently need to come forward with a strategy to remove Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras from the whole of the procurement supply chain. In the words of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Fraser Sampson, whom I met last month, these cameras are built on “digital asbestos”. We need a serious government-led plan for their removal. That might take several years. It is the same issue that we had to face with Huawei. We should also develop technology to mitigate the risks these cameras pose in the meantime. We can do that by looking at issues such as connectivity through software, which Canadians are developing at the present time, which might not require the physical removal of all cameras.

Such a plan could emulate a similar timetable that Ministers set out in the then Telecoms (Security) Bill—to which I moved amendments—for the removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G network. This would include setting a hard date to phase out and remove Hikvision and Dahua technology and hardware from the procurement supply chain; looking at provision and support that can be offered to cash-strapped local authorities to help with the removal; and considering following the USA in banning the sale and import of these cameras in the United Kingdom.

I welcome the leadership that Ministers have shown recently in banning the use of Hikvision and Dahua cameras in government departments, but I urge them to consider applying that same leadership to the rest of the procurement supply chain. The Government are no longer saying that they are unaware of the security and ethical concerns of using these cameras and they cannot wish away the existence of these cameras in the wider procurement supply chain. We need an urgent timetable and a plan to remove Hikvision and Dahua from the UK supply chain in its entirety. I hope the Minister will further consider accepting the entirety of this amendment so that such a timetable and plan will be put in place.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 141, which is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, demonstrating cross-party support for it. I add my support to the other amendments in this group.

I also underline my gratitude to the Government and my noble friend the Minister for seriously engaging with the amendment over the summer. I know that we share a desire to mitigate the two key risk areas in public procurement that the amendment covers: first, the possible UK dependency on authoritarian states; and, secondly, the risk of modern slavery in government supply chains. I covered these areas in Committee, so I will keep my comments brief and seek to address any concerns that my noble friend might have raised.

To recap, proposed new subsection (1) would place a burden on the Secretary of State to create regulations that reduce public bodies’ dependency on authoritarian states. As we know, there is no agreed definition of what constitutes an “authoritarian state” in UK law or regulation. Therefore, proposed new subsection (2) would adopt the categorisation contained in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, allowing the legislation to adapt to contemporary geopolitical developments in line with the latest iteration of the review. The countries the amendment would currently apply to as “threats” are Iran, Russia and North Korea, and, as a “systemic competitor”, China. As we have heard, this perspective on China was reiterated by the Prime Minister only this week.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn now to Amendment 95 on product labelling; there has not been much discussion of it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, if it is helpful to the noble Baroness, I say that, because of the time and because we did have a preliminary debate about this in Committee, it would not be my intention to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 95. I am quite happy for her to write to me with any remarks that she might have liked to have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, it is important to put on the record that we currently have a trade deficit with the People’s Republic of China of £40 billion. Dependency, resilience, and the destruction of our own manufacturing base because we are outcompeted through the use of slave labour and goods that are priced much more cheaply than people on a living wage can produce in the United Kingdom—these are issues that the Government need to take rather more seriously than she has just done.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do take these issues seriously and I commented on diversification, which I have personally been involved in. It is because there is a large amount of trade with China that this cannot be changed overnight—and there might not be a case to do so in non-strategic areas. Inflation is very important and the opening up of Asia has historically been helpful in this country. The Prime Minister said in his speech that we must be realistic and clear about China, but that obviously does not mean we should abandon our values.

It goes without saying that practices such as slavery and human trafficking have no place in government supply chains. We have shown our determination to address modern slavery in many ways, including in the Bill. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that under Clause 27, contracting authorities must ask suppliers to provide details of their intended supply chain for the contract. Authorities can consider whether a subcontractor is subject to a ground for exclusion such as modern slavery. If they conclude that this is the case and that it has failed to self-clean, the lead supplier itself is liable to be excluded from the procurement if it does not take the opportunity to remove the subcontractor from its supply chain. However, we must recognise the complexity of the issue.

My noble friend’s amendment says that

“The Secretary of State must … make provision”


in procurements and contracts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking, and that this is to be done by secondary legislation, but I fear that the amendment fails to reflect the sheer complexity of the matter. Regulations cannot specify precisely which award criteria might be appropriate to address the risk of slavery and human trafficking in every different procurement: this depends on the nature of the particular contract being tendered, including what is being purchased and the likely nature and location of supply chains. The right vehicle to help contracting authorities address slavery and human trafficking risks is in guidance, and there is already comprehensive guidance setting out the action that departments must take. This is 46 pages long and includes sections on managing risks in new procurements, assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery are identified, supply chain mapping, useful tools, training and questions to ask.

My noble friend will know that I have committed to put the matters addressed in the guidance on a statutory footing as part of the national procurement policy statement, provided for under Clause 12 of the Bill. This would mean that all contracted authorities would have to have regard to that guidance, which I think the noble Baroness can see is a significant step forward.

Finally, I note that the draft provisions in the amendment go significantly beyond the language in the Health and Care Act with which it was my noble friend’s stated intention to bring the Bill into alignment. Amendment 141 also creates a strong expectation that the Minister will make regulations, and that they will cover the matters referred to in the amendment, so it is effectively a must.

I know that people are looking forward to getting to the end of this debate, so I will not go through the problems with proposed new subsection (5)(d) to (f), but I will ask noble Lords to note that this will be burdensome to contracting authorities as well as small businesses. I know that my noble friend does not much care about the latter, but there might be wider concern about the gumming-up of contracting authorities in this matter when we have already made arrangements in the Bill to give modern slavery much more focus, and have added that to the relevant schedules.

We believe that proposed new subsection (5)(f), for example, is disproportionate and contrary to the open principles of our procurement regime, as well as to the interests of efficiency, value for money and common sense. Moreover, countries and regions that pose risks change over time, and that is another reason to use guidance, and not this Bill, on this matter.

Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Blencathra that we should remember that the new regime will give broader exclusion powers to contracting authorities—he referenced Huawei—which will have primary responsibility for applying the exclusions regime.

In closing, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment, but I emphasise the progress that this Bill has made, and I therefore find some of the comments on this group a little disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

94: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Timeline for removal of suppliers
(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a timeline for the removal of physical technology or surveillance equipment from the Government’s procurement supply chain where the Secretary of State is satisfied there is established evidence that a provider has been involved in—(a) modern slavery,(b) genocide, or(c) crimes against humanity.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the timeline before Parliament.”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Members of both Houses all support the greatest possible transparency and recognise that we need to change the culture in all three armed services from one that says, “We have to have equipment that is at least as complex and of at least as high a standard as that of the US” to one that says, “For the many things we need, more things that are slightly less complex and a hell of a lot cheaper would probably be better”. So I ask for more transparency—that is where the audit comes from. We are actively concerned about supporting our Armed Forces, but we recognise that the implications of what we have seen between Ukraine and Russia give rise to large questions about the future balance of defence procurement that we have to address.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right to remind us not just of events in Victorian Britain but of what is happening at the moment and the impact that events in Ukraine and elsewhere will have on our procurement programmes.

I serve on your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—it is wonderful to see her in her place—knows, throughout the whole of this year we have been conducting an inquiry into procurement and defence priorities, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, touched on. We began it before the second invasion of Ukraine in February. From my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who pressed this issue in Committee, I know how important this is, for all the reasons he described. He has a great sense of patriotism and cares for our Armed Forces, and I strongly associate myself with him and the desire for a probing amendment to test some of these questions.

One reason why I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will be able to reply in terms to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on Ajax especially, is that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is chair of our Select Committee, was here during his speech—she was unable to stay—and said that I can tell the House that she strongly agrees with the questions he put. She hopes that the noble Baroness will be able to answer them because they will be part of the terms of our committee’s report, which we have to complete before the House rises for the Christmas Recess at the end of December. So it is important that, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer those probing questions this evening, we are given answers in due course.

One of the witnesses to the Select Committee inquiry was Professor John Louth, who was the director of defence, industries and society research at RUSI from 2011 to 2019. When we asked him directly about the way in which we should go about defence procurement, I asked him specifically about the Bill and whether it would be welcome. He said:

“I have tried to read as much of this as possible … It is hard to identify the end state that the Government are looking for”.


He said that there are

“lines and lines of rhetoric and legalistic reform”,

some of which is incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.

I asked him specifically about Ajax, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been raising, and he replied that it has been a “disaster”. As we have heard, it was intended to be a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army, and it has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date, yet so far not a single deployable vehicle has been delivered—not one. It was of course supposed to enter service in 2017, but it has been subject to what the Commons committee called a “litany of failures”, including noise and vibration problems that injured the soldiers testing the vehicles. Can the Minister tell us whether those safety issues have been resolved, or whether they are ever likely to be?

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us that the House of Lords Select Committee said the programme had been “flawed from the outset” and also that it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the Ministry of Defence

“once again made fundamental mistakes in its planning and management of a major defence programme.”

Pulling no punches, the Public Accounts Committee accused the department of failing to deliver vehicles which the Armed Forces need

“to better protect the nation and to meet our NATO commitments”.

In the current situation, with one eye eastwards to Ukraine, that is a very serious statement by a senior committee of Parliament—and this Bill, of course, is a Bill that will go down to the other place. It will go as a pristine Bill from the House of Lords, but the other place will be able to amend it, and I have no doubt that people from the Public Accounts Committee will want the answers that the noble Lord has gently been asking for this evening.

I will end by quoting Meg Hillier, who chaired the committee inquiry. She said:

“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money is wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”


That is good enough reason alone, surely, for the Minister to give the House a comprehensive reply.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for their contributions. I understand fully that the proposed amendment is well intended, and I accept it in that spirit. I think it has certain implicit difficulties, which I shall move on to. I would never object to the Opposition Benches holding the Government’s feet to the fire—that is what the Opposition are there to do—but I hope they will be patient with me as I seek to explain why the precise terms of the amendment confront the MoD with difficulty.

The proposed amendment would require the Ministry of Defence to commission and publish a report from the National Audit Office, setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of prepaid services, cancellations or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. The reason the MoD rejects the amendment is not because it is not in sympathy with what I have identified as a well-intended sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but quite simply because existing processes already ensure robust scrutiny and accountability of Ministry of Defence procurements.

Before I move on to that more detailed exposition, let me deal with a very specific point the noble Lord raised about the defence equipment plan which was published yesterday. He is more ahead than I am because I have been preparing for this. I have referred it to my officials, and I am told that it is difficult to calculate an accurate figure of inflation at the moment, due to volatility. That is an inadequate response to give the noble Lord from the Dispatch Box, so I offer to write to him. We will do further research in the department, and I shall endeavour to expand on what these particular difficulties are.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

141: After Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
“Supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for reducing the dependency of public bodies upon goods and services which originate in whole or in part in a country considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat.(2) A country is “considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat” if it was defined as such in the latest Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.(3) The regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include—(a) provision for an annual review of the dependency of public bodies upon countries which are considered by the United Kingdom as systemic competitors or threats;(b) provision for the setting of acceptable dependency thresholds across all categories of public procurement.(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for eradicating from all public contracts goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.(5) The regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, include—(a) provision in connection with the processes to be followed by public bodies in the procurement of goods or services for the purposes of public contracts; (b) provision as to steps that must be taken by public bodies for assessing and addressing the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in public bodies’ supply chains;(c) provision as to matters for which provision must be made in contracts for goods or services entered into by public bodies;(d) provision as to the standards of disclosure and transparency required for all contractors or prospective contractors, which must, at a minimum, include publication and verification of information about the country of origin of all sourcing inputs in their supply chain;(e) provision for the public disclosure of the names of contractors or prospective contractors whose supply chains are considered tainted by slavery and human trafficking;(f) provision for the publication and dissemination of a risk register detailing areas from which goods cannot be sourced without unreasonable risk of slavery and human trafficking being present in supply chains.(6) In this section—“public body” means a body exercising functions of a public nature;“slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;goods or services are “tainted” by slavery and human trafficking if slavery and human trafficking take place in relation to anyone involved in the supply chain for providing those goods or services.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to improve the UK’s supply chain resilience against dependency and human rights abuse by creating a double regulation making power: to enable the Government to develop a plan to address dependency throughout public procurement; and to bring the human rights standards of wider public procurement in line with the procurement standards of the Department of Health and Social Care.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

With the leave of the House, I shall speak for a moment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and as one of the four sponsors of the amendment, to say how encouraged we were by the offer made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for a meeting with the sponsors of the amendment. Given that this Bill is not in ping-pong but will be going to another place for further consideration, it is now the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, not to move the amendment and to return to this question once we have had the opportunity of meeting the Minister and, in due course, returning to the issues we explored during the debate this evening.

Amendment 141 not moved.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, this is a really important Bill. It will guide an estimated £300 billion of public procurement, hopefully making it safe while driving some of the things we want to happen. I thank the Minister. She had an interesting start on this Bill; she too was a Back-Bencher and tabled several critical amendments early on, and was then suddenly propelled to the Front Bench. I think we benefited from that change of perspective—that is not to criticise her predecessor.

It is appropriate that we should bookend this Bill with another amendment, because it has been a story of amendments. We should thank the Bill team, who worked through the night at the start of this in Committee in July, explaining and setting out what the hundreds of amendments were there to do. But because there were so many amendments and clearly there was so much work to do, the Bill leaves us with still more work and scrutiny required, if it is going to achieve the things that we all want it to achieve—that is, to have a transparent process that helps our small, medium and social enterprises to flourish in the public procurement system. When it goes to the other place, I hope that those further changes can be made to make sure that it delivers that, and in an ethical way.

I thank the Minister, her predecessor and her Whips in this. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what has been a very constructive and co-operative process. I also thank my colleagues. I will name them, because they have worked very hard: my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Humphreys, Lady Northover, Lady Parminter, Lord Purvis, Lord Scriven, Lady Smith, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Wallace. That list reflects the fact that the Bill touches so much of public life. Finally, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ office, without whom life would have been extraordinarily confusing for us on these Benches. That said, we wish the Bill well and beg that the MPs continue to work on it on our behalf.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have something to add before the thanks are completed. The Minister was good enough to express her thanks to the Cross Benches, and I draw the attention of the House to the all-party amendments which were included in the Bill. I begin by thanking her. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just said, it was unusual for a poacher to be turned gamekeeper in the course of the proceedings of the Bill and she did it with great aplomb and showed all the characteristics that we have come to associate with her, in the way that she dealt with constructive attempts to improve the Bill as it proceeded through Committee and Report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill has enjoyed support from around the entire House and, of course, whatever form a Bill is in, we will all always want to try to add to it, if we are able to do so. I was therefore very grateful to the House for including the cross-party amendment I moved on the removal of surveillance equipment. I also supported the all-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is here, on the use of forced organ harvesting. Those two amendments are now in the Bill as it goes to another place. Unlike on ping-pong, this is a pristine Bill going to the other place. I hope that Ministers will engage with those amendments and not simply try to remove them.

There were two other amendments. The Minister will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, moved an all-party amendment which was not taken to a vote. We had a discussion during Report about how that could be taken to the Minister who might deal with the Bill when it reached the House of Commons. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be able to draw that to the attention of the House of Commons Minister and suggest that such a meeting should now take place.

With those remarks, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his noble friends, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and her noble friends—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in particular—and those on the Cross Benches who supported the amendments that we brought forward.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am the sole surviving Member of the Committee here today who contributed. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team on getting the Bill thus far. I am obviously immensely disappointed not to have succeeded in my attempt to source more local food in our procurement contracts, but I hope that this can be redressed in the other place.

My noble friend alluded to something that is a source of great concern to me. I have in my possession the memorandum from the Scottish Government, which expressed their concern and inability to add their consent to the Bill. Does she not share my concern that it would be very regrettable if the Scottish Government felt obliged to carry out their own Bill in this area, because of their concern about the continued ability to carry out cross-border procurement? Could this still be addressed in the other place before the Bill reaches Royal Assent?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

To further reassure noble Lords, as far as I am aware no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting—though if they were, the exclusion grounds would apply. Although I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern—he has been very eloquent in this area in successive debates on the Bill—I am not convinced of the case for this amendment. I hope that, in the light of what has been said, he may decide not to press this amendment today, bearing in mind all that I have said about our approach to this abhorrent practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister. I will come back to that in a few moments, because she has been extraordinarily helpful, and I know we have made significant progress from when the first amendment was moved on this issue.

In parenthesis, before I begin—and because I will not weary the House with a second speech later, even if the opportunity is there—I would like to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, is trying to achieve with Motion 102A and Amendment 102B. Again, I have spoken on those previously, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, from the Conservative Benches, my noble friend Lady Finlay—who is unable to be with us this evening—and many others who want to support what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.

I turn to Clause 65 and Amendment 47B in Motion 47A in my name. As the Minister said, it would require a timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment that is connected to the internet and subject to the People’s Republic of China’s national intelligence law. I did say that I would like to start my remarks, and I do, by paying tribute to the Minister’s own efforts and those of her officials, who have met with me now on several occasions—most recently on Thursday last—to discuss the concerns of Members of both Houses when it comes to the presence of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in our public procurement chain.

As recently as yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that the Co-op has decided to ban Chinese CCTV for “ethical and security reasons”. Given the Minister’s professional background in a previous life, she will know that, in doing this, it is following the example of Tesco. It would indeed be odd if supermarkets were ahead of public bodies in recognising the dangers posed by the CCP’s surveillance state. I was also very struck that the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable Oliver Dowden, speaking in another place this afternoon about allegations concerning espionage on the estate of your Lordships’ House and that of another place, made a point of saying that one of his first actions in Whitehall had been to have surveillance cameras linked to Hikvision removed from his department. This is something that Sajid Javid also said when he became Secretary of State for Health. I simply say that, if supermarkets and departments of state are not suitable places for these cameras, where is? It would indeed be odd if we did not think about the 60% of public bodies that are estimated to have Hikvision cameras in use.

This is not a new question that I am putting to your Lordships’ House; this is something I have raised on over 40 occasions in the House or in Grand Committee since 2020. Both the Minister and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, have taken this issue seriously. When the noble Lord was in charge of this Bill, in its earliest stages, we had a meeting to discuss Hikvision. Because I want to get on with seeing a resolution of this issue, I am able to welcome the clear commitment from the Minister, given at the Dispatch Box, for a timetable for the removal of this surveillance equipment and these cameras from sensitive sites. However, it is worth noting, as I have said, how we got here.

As the Government have recognised, there are at least a million Hikvision and Dahua cameras in the UK, installed across our high streets, job centres, schools, police forces, hospitals, universities, local government buildings and even government departments. I gently say to the Minister that, although she is right that military barracks or GCHQ are clearly far more sensitive sites than, say, hospitals or schools, some of this is about data collection. That involves every single citizen of this country, so it poses dangers for them too. I commend to her the recent Channel 4 documentary on Hikvision and the fantastic work of IPVM, Big Brother Watch, Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a patron—and other organisations that have outlined the security risk that these cameras pose, particularly in those sensitive public sector sites, but not exclusively so.

It is quite something to consider that, as a country, we have willingly handed over the majority of our surveillance infrastructure, which watches the often public and sometimes intimately private moments of our lives, not just to the police or local authorities but to an authoritarian Government that the House of Commons has found, on a resolution of the House, credibly accused of genocide. I declare a non-financial interest as vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs.

How ironic it is that we are debating this on the day we have learned that an alleged CCP spy has been operating across Parliament, based in the office of a Member of another place. We urgently need a bicameral group of senior parliamentarians to investigate this shocking lapse. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has warned against the infiltration of our universities and other institutions. Only last week, the University of Cambridge ended a partnership with a subsidiary company developing Chinese weapons and military hardware. The line between crass naivety and outright collaboration is a fine one. We recall the Cambridge spies and the Soviet Union, and some of the disastrous consequences. It should send a shiver down the spine of every freedom-loving person to see swathes of the public surveillance procurement supply chain handed over to Chinese companies that are blacklisted for complicity in gross human rights violations by the United States and which are legally compelled under the PRC national intelligence law to pass on data to the Chinese Communist Party state.

As we debate the timeline for their removal from our public procurement supply chain, the definition of what we should consider “sensitive sites” and the oversight that Members of this House and another place will have should be high on our agenda. Surely, for too long government policy towards China has favoured investment and trade at the expense of our national security, our values and human rights. We have underestimated the PRC, ignored the voices of those Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and others who have been persecuted by the CCP and know it best, and failed to produce a coherent strategy to deal with the threat that the PRC poses. I am always struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who knows a thing or two about China. He describes it as cakeism—wanting to have your cake and eat it—to want trade deals on the one hand, but recognise the country as a threat to your national interest on the other.