Procurement Bill [Lords] Consideration of Lords message Schedule 7
Discretionary exclusion grounds 1.22pm The Parliamentary Secretary,
Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart) I beg to move, That this House
disagrees with Lords amendment 102B. It is an honour once again to
open the debate on this important Bill, which I am delighted to say
is now so close to receiving Royal Assent. The Bill is a key Brexit
benefit, delivering a simpler, more transparent...Request free trial
Procurement Bill
[Lords]
Consideration of Lords message
Schedule 7
Discretionary exclusion grounds
1.22pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office ()
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
102B.
It is an honour once again to open the debate on this important
Bill, which I am delighted to say is now so close to receiving
Royal Assent. The Bill is a key Brexit benefit, delivering a
simpler, more transparent procurement framework that will benefit
small businesses and meet the needs of UK suppliers and
contracting authorities.
Colleagues in the Chamber will also, I hope, remember that, when
the Bill was last debated in this House, we offered significant
new measures to protect the UK’s public procurement supply chain
from threats to national security. Those included new grounds to
add suppliers to the debarment list for particular types of
contracts that will allow us to ban risky suppliers from bidding
for those contracts; the creation of a new national security unit
for procurement that will provide dedicated resources in the
Cabinet Office to scrutinise national security risks in
procurement; and a commitment to publish a timetable for removal
of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the
national intelligence law of China from Government Department
sensitive sites. Earlier this week in the other place, we went
further: my noble friend provided an official
clarification of the definition of sensitive sites and committed
to an annual written report detailing progress. I am sure this
House will welcome our additional agreements and agree that they
demonstrate the Government’s unwavering dedication to tackle
these issues seriously.
I will deal today with one amendment that the other place sent
back to this House, on the subject of organ harvesting. Let me
begin by saying that I think all sides of this House are in
complete agreement that organ harvesting is a dreadful practice
that has no place in our supply chains. The question before us
today is whether Lords amendment 102B is the right or necessary
one to make, given other provisions in the Bill. In Committee in
this House, the Government removed a discretionary exclusion
ground for suppliers engaged in forced organ harvesting. The
other place has subsequently proposed an amendment in lieu, with
some modifications of the original amendment. This new version of
the Lords amendment does not cover unethical activities relating
to human tissue; it does, however, still cover forced organ
harvesting and dealing in devices, equipment or services relating
to forced organ harvesting.
I urge this House to reject this amendment for a number of
reasons. First, as I have said previously, I do not believe that
the amendment is necessary as, crucially, organ harvesting is
already dealt with under existing provisions in the Procurement
Bill. Under the Bill, any suppliers failing to adhere to existing
ethical or professional standards that apply in their industry,
including those relating to the removal, storage and use of human
tissue, could be excluded on the grounds of professional
misconduct. It is worth adding at this point that, as far as His
Majesty’s Government are aware, no supplier in the UK public
sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. This means
that it is very unlikely that any of our public money is being
spent on that terrible practice. As noted above, however, if such
a situation did arise, the exclusion for professional misconduct
would apply.
Secondly, the amendment has significant consequences for
contracting authorities. It extends to suppliers
“dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to
forced organ harvesting.”
That is an incredibly broad provision that would be extremely
difficult for contracting authorities and suppliers to verify in
respect of all supply chains and customer bases. If there were
any doubt about whether that discretionary ground applied, local
authorities or NHS trusts would need to undertake significant due
diligence to satisfy themselves that the entire supply chain and
the end user of all goods provided by suppliers—potentially
including oxygen masks, IT equipment and so on—were not used in
these terrible practices. It would mean that a small business
tendering for Government contracts would need to understand where
their customers might be using or selling their products, to
enable them to genuinely and legitimately confirm that they were
not subject to this ground.
More generally, the amendment would create excessive bureaucracy,
requiring each and every supplier bidding across the thousands of
contracts awarded by contracting authorities each year to declare
that they are not guilty of forced organ harvesting, when we know
that there is no evidence of that horrific practice occurring in
UK public sector supply chains. We believe that such a burden
would be unjustified when the Bill already covers this issue.
Thirdly, the Government are already taking steps to tackle the
issue of organ harvesting. We have been explicit that the
overseas organ trade, or complicity with it, will not be
tolerated. For example, by virtue of the Health and Care Act
2022, it is already an offence to travel outside of the UK to
purchase an organ. In addition, the Government continue to
monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ
harvesting in China, and maintain a dialogue with leading
non-governmental organisations and international partners on this
very important issue. This Bill creates new rules for suppliers
and contracting authorities that will hopefully stay on the
statute book for many decades to come.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I apologise for being slightly delayed, Mr Deputy Speaker: I did
not see this debate pop up on the annunciator. I rushed to ask a
question about this topic. Forgive me.
On the issue of organ harvesting, I understand the difficulties
with this particular amendment, so while I am instinctively
supportive of what the Lords are trying to do, I understand the
Government’s arguments. However, there is a way to tighten this
up. Organ harvesting is taking place in China—it is a regular
occurrence—but I would not rely too much on declarations from
supply chains. We have already unearthed the problem that supply
chains are under no obligation to do the due diligence that would
enable them to know whether companies, or the people they are
trading with, have any involvement with organ harvesting.
Tightening that up would be great.
On that basis, does my hon. Friend accept that we now have to
make sure that China is on the enhanced tier of the foreign
agents registration scheme? That would really put power in the
Government’s hands to make sure that supply chains were properly
checked. Will he say to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
and to all those concerned that it is time we did so? China is a
genuine threat to us, industrially as well as politically.
My right hon. Friend is an expert on these matters. I thank him
for his intervention—I have to say that I was quite surprised
that he was not sitting behind me when I stood up in the first
place, but I am delighted to see him in the Chamber now. I am
sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard
his remarks and will consider them carefully. This is obviously a
procurement Bill, and we are doing our best to create the
post-Brexit framework that will give us an enhanced ability to
improve all aspects of procurement in our society.
In Committee and on Report in this House, we thought it was
necessary to tighten up national security considerations to make
sure that foreign hostile actors could not get involved in public
procurement. We have—as my right hon. Friend knows, because he
gave us good advice—taken steps to make sure that we remove
technologies that come from those hostile actors from sensitive
sites. On the broader point he made at the end of his comments,
that is beyond my pay grade, but I have no doubt that those above
my pay grade have heard what he has said.
This is an excellent Bill. It is a tribute to the officials who
have worked on it and to my predecessors who worked on it in the
Cabinet Office. I therefore urge the House to reject the
amendment made by the other House and support the Government’s
motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
1.30pm
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
Coming in as I do at the tail end of the passage of this Bill, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my
hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (), for all her work on
the Bill, and to say that I look forward to working
constructively with the Minister.
Turning to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment
102B, we can all agree that forced organ harvesting—a practice
involving the removal of organs from a living prisoner that
results in their death or near death—is abhorrent. The debate on
this Government motion is about whether there should be a
specific clause in the Bill to make it clear that we do not want
to see a single penny of taxpayers’ money go to any company
linked to this practice, or whether that is adequately covered by
the concept of professional misconduct that can be used against
serious unethical behaviour.
We heard powerful speeches in the other place from and , who made
compelling arguments for the inclusion in the Bill of the measure
against forced organ harvesting and provided evidence of the
practice taking place in China. I thank my hon. Friends the
Members for Vauxhall and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms
Rimmer) for all they have done to highlight the issue.
Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights has stated that serious human rights violations
have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region:
“Allegations of…torture…including forced medical treatment…are
credible”.
This is a very current issue, and we would like to see specific
mention of it in the Bill.
First, including a specific reference to forced organ harvesting
in the Bill will highlight the issue and send a message to
potential supply companies to make specific checks that they are
not inadvertently in any way associated with the abhorrent
business of forced organ harvesting. Secondly, although the
Minister has said that forced organ harvesting is already covered
by the ground of professional misconduct, which includes serious
unethical behaviour, specific mention of it in the Bill will
highlight to those undertaking procurement to be particularly
vigilant in respect of any potential association of supply
companies with this appalling practice. Thirdly, making specific
mention of forced organ harvesting helps to send a clear message
to China and anywhere else it may occur that the practice will
not be tolerated and that there will be economic
consequences.
The Minister has objected to having specific mention of forced
organ harvesting because it means additional paperwork, and we
all want to cut down the amount of paperwork that companies have
to deal with. However, I would suggest in this case that a small
amount of additional work is well worth it if it sends a strong
message of condemnation, strengthens awareness of the issue and
hastens the end of this abhorrent practice. The Opposition
support the position taken by the other place of including the
measure on forced organ harvesting in the Bill, and will
therefore vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with
the Lords amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here talking about Lords amendments for
the second day in a row. I am glad to see the Procurement Bill
making progress and getting towards becoming legislation. As the
Minister has commented on a number of occasions, we have not got
to the place that he wanted in relation to his conversations with
the Scottish Government about the Bill. To be fair, we have also
not got to the place we wanted for the Bill. Neither of us is
entirely happy with the position that has been reached, but I do
appreciate the work that has been done to communicate between the
Governments on this. Both tried to find a compromise solution,
but it was just impossible on this occasion to come to one that
we were both happy with.
Specifically on the Government motion to disagree with Lords
amendment 102B on forced organ harvesting, the hon. Member for
Llanelli (Dame ) has laid out a number of very important points and
I do not want to go over those. The Minister has said there is an
absence of evidence that there is any forced organ harvesting in
any of the supply chains involved in UK procurement, and I do
appreciate that that is case. However, if the Government are able
to find out that there is an absence of evidence on this, surely
it should not be beyond the means of those procuring or of
companies supplying or buying things that are bidding for
Government procurement contracts to find out that their supply
chains are not involved. If the Government are able to find out
these things, surely those companies should.
The point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli about raising
awareness is incredibly important. We have worked very hard with
companies through the changes in various Acts, including
improving companies’ corporate social responsibility and
requiring them to make modern slavery statements. We have worked
hard to ensure that companies are taking their social
responsibilities seriously, and I therefore do not think that
this measure is unreasonable. It would not apply to all
companies; it applies only to companies bidding for Government
contracts. Surely we want companies bidding for Government
contracts to ensure that they are as within the law as possible,
upholding human rights and demonstrating corporate social
responsibility. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask
those companies to look into their supply chains and consider
whether they are financially supporting organisations or
companies that are involved in forced organ harvesting. I think
it is reasonable for us to ask them to spend a little bit of time
doing this if they expect to take on Government contracts.
Actually, it is simpler even than that. In America, first, it is
an offence for a company to have falsified, knowingly or
unknowingly, its declarations on supply chains. Secondly, the US
Government use companies such as Oritain that use criminal
science to test where products were made and whether declarations
were correct, and they are therefore able to enforce them. What
is happening is that those supply chains are now being rigorously
declared by American companies that do not wish to lose
Government business. It would not be too much to ask the
Government to do spot checks, using such companies that are
available to them, and I have recommended it to the Foreign
Office, not that that really matters.
I think the right hon. Member makes a reasonable and
proportionate suggestion. Although we disagree on lots of things,
I am very surprised to find myself agreeing with him for the
second time this week on this. I do appreciate his suggestion,
and I hope those on his Front Bench are listening to the advice
he has given.
I am not going to test the House’s patience by dragging this out.
We will be voting with the Labour party against the Government’s
motion to disagree, because we believe that the more stringent
controls are something it is absolutely reasonable for us to ask
of companies. This is not for all companies, as I have said, but
just for those that hope to get Government contracts.
(St Helens South and Whiston)
(Lab)
In this week of all weeks, the House needs to show that our
democracy is strong and that we are not intimidated by other
nations. The Chinese Communist party has shown that it holds our
democracy in contempt. Today we have an opportunity to put tough
talk into action.
Forced organ harvesting is a systemic trade that is taking place
on an industrial scale in China. Up to 100,000 of its citizens
are butchered each year for their organs. This is a
state-sponsored crime against humanity. The two or three organs
harvested from a healthy young adult are worth over £500,000.
Evidence of this crime has been extensively investigated by the
China and Uyghur tribunals chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, the
former lead prosecutor at The Hague. At the tribunals, evidence
was heard of systematic medical testing of thousands of prisoners
of conscience, allowing the oppressive regime to create an organ
bank.
I have spoken extensively on the horrors that have occurred due
to forced organ harvesting in previous stages of the Bill, so now
I will address some of the concerns that the Government expressed
in the other place when opposing the amendment. The Government
claim that forced organ harvesting will be covered by existing
provisions of the Bill. Certain conduct will absolutely not be
covered by the existing provisions on professional misconduct.
Supply chains can be complex, and improper conduct may often be
one step too far removed from the crime for professional
misconduct elements to be made out. Trying to cover all the
different ethical and professional misconduct regulations across
a multitude of industries is not practical. Only by having a
specific provision for forced organ harvesting will we ensure
that British taxpayers’ money is not funding this horrific trade.
Otherwise, it will be all too easy for companies to hide behind
complex supply chains.
The second issue that the Government raised in the other place
was that there was no evidence of UK organisations facilitating
forced organ harvesting, yet there are companies with substantial
operations in the UK providing immunosuppressive drugs for
transplants in China. There is evidence of companies dramatically
raising their stake in the Chinese market over the past few
years. Sources on the ground claim that CellCept, an
immunosuppressive drug, has been used on Chinese prisoners for
transplants. There is no evidence that those individuals
consented.
That is why a clear and direct provision relating to forced organ
harvesting is necessary. UK taxpayers’ money should not
inadvertently be supporting this inhumane trade perpetrated by
the Chinese Communist party. There must be the ability or at
least the option to stop it. The amendment is not asking for
draconian action. It simply gives discretionary powers to exclude
a supplier from a procurement contract if there is a connection
to forced organ harvesting. That would give the Government the
ability to act to prevent the complicity of UK taxpayers in
forced organ harvesting.
The amendment must be seen in the context of our country’s wider
relationship with China. The Government have extensively talked
tough about standing up for our values against China. China is a
trading partner that we cannot ignore or close ourselves off to,
but that does not mean that we should not take such opportunities
as this amendment to do right by our values and by humanity. Only
a couple of days ago, the Prime Minister told the Chinese Prime
Minister that attempts to undermine British democracy are
completely unacceptable and that we will defend our democracy and
our security. The amendment gives us the opportunity to use our
democracy—the democracy that they seem to hold in contempt—to
stand up for our values against China.
I urge colleagues across the House to take this opportunity to
send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party, in this week
of all weeks, that this House will stand up for our values by
keeping Lords amendment 102B in the Bill.
With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have made
points in this important debate. Let me remind colleagues that
the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected in the areas
of greatest risk to public procurement. I return to the point I
made at the start: there is fortunately no single known instance
of such practice in the UK public procurement chain. We do not
see it as a great risk to public procurement. I welcome the hon.
Member for Llanelli (Dame ) to her place and her new role, and I look forward
to debating with her and working with her in the weeks and months
ahead.
1.45pm
The hon. Lady mentioned the World Health Organisation. The
Government regularly discuss allegations of organ harvesting with
the WHO, and also with other international partners and human
rights NGOs. Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office wrote to the WHO in Geneva to encourage it to
give careful consideration to the findings of the China tribunal
on organ harvesting in March 2020. I very much do not want the
House to get the impression that we do not take this seriously.
It is a feature of our diplomacy and our work, where we are
co-operating with like-minded nations that abhor this
practice.
A number of Members raised points about professional misconduct.
The existing provisions relating to professional misconduct apply
where suppliers fail to adhere to ethical or professional
standards that apply in their industry or where the supplier is
engaged in professional misconduct that brings into question
their integrity. I assure the House that practices involving the
removal, storage and use of human tissue that are either illegal
or contrary to ethical professional standards will be covered. It
is therefore unnecessary to single out that particular practice
in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North () spoke on a number of
issues. It remains a sadness for the Government that the Scottish
Government chose not to be part of this Bill, leaving Scotland
out of this new procurement regime and depriving small and
medium-sized enterprises in Scotland of the advantages that will
come. They will also sit outside the new security measures that
we have introduced, but that is a matter for the Scottish
Government, and I hope that Scottish voters are listening and
that as this Bill goes through they realise the opportunities
that their Government have chosen to deprive them of.
The hon. Lady raised an issue about the scope of Government
contracts. We are dealing with many contracts from many different
layers throughout public procurement, which could be such things
as grass-cutting services in a local authority. With the
amendment, we would be asking small and medium-sized enterprises
to conduct a level of diligence that goes way beyond their needs
and expertise. That is a disproportionate burden to place on
them. If we put too many burdens on small and medium-sized
enterprises, we may discourage those businesses from applying for
public contracts, which is one of the precise and specific aims
of the Bill. We have £300 billion-worth of public procurement
every year. I want to see small and medium-sized enterprises in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland getting a bigger bite of that
pie, as I am sure do you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that
SNP Members will vote against this Bill that they are not part
of, which I am afraid speaks to their peculiar constitutional
mindset.
To the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), I remind him that if
anybody falsifies their procurement declaration, that would be
grounds for exclusion under the Bill. We therefore believe that
that point is covered off.
I commend the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms
Rimmer) again on everything she has done to shine a light on
these terrible crimes. She is always at the forefront of these
debates and ensures that the plight of people in China is heard
in the House. To her points, I say again that if we were to
specify this one crime, of which we have found no evidence in UK
supply chains, we would also be inviting a long list covering
every conceivable misconduct in a vain attempt to provide
certainty on specific issues. That would create a large
bureaucratic burden, which is precisely what we are trying to get
away from in the Bill. However, I reassure her again that having
looked at this over and over again, we believe that the existing
professional misconduct exclusion grounds will cover that and
help contracting authorities to do their bit to ensure that we do
not have suppliers in our supply chains who are involved in those
abhorrent practices.
I hope that we can move this vital Bill a step closer to Royal
Assent. The House has made its view clear once before, and I ask
that it makes its view clear a second time.
Question put, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment
102B.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. A deferred Division was going on in the No Lobby. That
will be paused while this Division takes place and will resume
after it is over, with injury time of about 10 minutes so that
those who have not voted in the deferred Division will get an
opportunity to do so.
[Division 326
The House having divided:
Ayes
274
Noes
194
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 13 September 2023 at
1.50pm](/Commons/2023-09-13/division/811F702D-D087-427F-986F-591BCEDE4444/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 102B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be
assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment
102B;
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
