A committee of MPs on Tuesday removed parts of the Procurement Bill that aim to purge Chinese security cameras and accomplices of forced organ harvesting from the UK’s public supply chain.
The two clauses were passed in the House of Lords on Dec. 2 despite the fact that the government opposed the proposals, citing technicality issues. But the government, which has a majority in Parliament, managed to remove them in the House of Commons.
Security Cameras
One of the clauses, inserted by Lord Alton of Liverpool, would have compelled the government to publish a timeline for the removal of physical technology or surveillance equipment from the government’s procurement supply chain where there is established evidence that a provider has been involved in modern slavery, genocide, or crimes against humanity.The clause was removed by eight votes against five. All committee members voted along party lines.
Speaking in the House of Lords in December, Alton said the legislation was about committing the government to the removal of all Hikvision and Dahua cameras from the public sector supply.
Hikvision and Dahua, two world-leading surveillance camera manufacturers ultimately owned by the Chinese Communist Party, are the main suppliers of surveillance cameras in Xinjiang, where the Uyghur Tribunal—chaired by the prominent British barrister and judge Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—found genocide had been taking place.
The cameras have also been found to have backdoors and vulnerabilities, sparking security concerns. The United States has blacklisted both companies.
The UK government has told its departments to stop installing new Chinese surveillance cameras into sensitive sites, citing security considerations, and advised them to consider replacing the existing ones before the maintenance schedule and do the same with non-sensitive sites.
Alton had welcomed the government’s decision, but said the process could take too long.
Speaking for the government on Tuesday, Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office Alex Burghart said the clause would require the government to review the evidence that existing surveillance suppliers or subcontractors have been involved in modern slavery, genocide, or crimes against humanity.
“Given the size and complexity of technology supply chains, any review of that nature would be costly and resource-intensive; it would need to cover hundreds, if not thousands, of companies,” he said.
He also argued that it’s “especially difficult” to prove the suppliers knowingly provided technology for use in human rights abuses and that if there were sufficient evidence to prove involvement, the cost and disruption of removing such surveillance equipment from across the entire government estate would be significant.
Burghart added that ministers are “deeply concerned by both the accusations of modern slavery and the national security implications posed by such equipment,” and that the government is taking actions including creating new powers in the bill that would exclude suppliers that pose serious security risks from future contracts.
Florence Eshalomi, shadow parliamentary secretary to the Cabinet Office, urged the government to reconsider, citing security concerns and “growing evidence of Hikvision’s and Dahua’s involvement in the construction of internment camps in Xinjiang.”
Kirsty Blackman, Scottish National Party’s Cabinet Office spokesperson, criticised the government for having “missed the point,” saying, “If the [United States] believes that there is enough evidence to do that, and the Scottish Government are getting rid of the Hikvision cameras we have in Scotland, I do not see why the UK Government are unable to act in that regard.”
Organ Harvesting
Also removed from the Bill was an exclusionary ground that would give ministers discretionary power to exclude a supplier if a contracting authority determines it or a connected person is found to be involved or have been involved in forced organ harvesting and unethical activities relating to human tissue.The text does not name any country or individual. During the debate in December, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who introduced the amendment, cited the “explicit” evidence of “state-sanctioned and widespread” killing by forced organ harvesting in China, arguing there is a “strong reason” to add forced organ harvesting to the exclusion list.
Burghart told MPs on Tuesday that “serious unethical behaviour particular to a certain industry is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct.”
“Every exclusion ground, whether mandatory or discretionary, must be considered for each and every supplier for each procurement. I am sure the Committee can appreciate how burdensome that would be when there are thousands of contracts every year,” he said.
Eshalomi opposed the removal of the part, saying the UK has to “ensure that any supplier with ties to forced organ harvesting is not allowed anywhere near our procurement system.”
Blackman abstained after acquiring assurance from Burghart that the “abhorrent practice” would qualify as serious unethical behaviour and that “the government are strongly opposed to this practice and to the people who conduct this practice and that we wish public procurement to have no part in it.”
The exclusionary ground was removed by eight votes against four.
In an email to The Epoch Times, Hunt said he is “very disappointed” with the news, and will consider the next steps when the bill goes back to the House of Lords.
