The government has agreed to submit annual reports to Parliament on the progress of removing Chinese CCTV cameras from “sensitive” public buildings. This comes after peers in the House of Lords voted in support of an amendment to the Procurement Bill. The amendment allows for the exclusion of suppliers involved in forced organ harvesting or in the dealings of any devices, equipment, or services related to forced organ harvesting. Forced organ harvesting is defined as killing a person without their consent to remove and transplant their organs. The amendment was proposed by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
The amendment was re-attached to the Procurement Bill after a previous version of the clause was removed by the government. Ministers argued that existing clauses already address suppliers engaged in professional misconduct, but supporters of the amendment believe forced organ harvesting needs to be specifically targeted. Lord Hunt stated that there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting, such as pharmaceutical companies supplying drugs to hospitals that remove organs from prisoners of conscience.
The Procurement Bill is currently in the “ping pong” stage of the legislative process, where it goes back and forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords for minor tweaks. It is likely that the clause will be removed or watered down in later rounds. Lord Hunt’s crusade against forced organ harvesting is particularly relevant in light of allegations that the Chinese regime has killed hundreds of thousands by removing organs from prisoners of conscience.
Another provision that was removed from the bill targeted Chinese surveillance camera brands, such as Hikvision and Dahua. These companies are known for their involvement in mass surveillance, including in labour camps in Xinjiang. Lord Alton of Liverpool’s amendment would have required the government to publish a timeline for removing Chinese cameras from all public buildings. Although the clause was removed, the government later agreed to publish a timeline for removing the cameras from “sensitive central government sites.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe clarified that “sensitive sites” include buildings that hold secret material, locations with officials holding developed vetting clearance, locations routinely used by ministers, and government locations covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The government also agreed to submit annual reports to Parliament on the progress of removing Chinese cameras from sensitive sites. The decision not to mandate the removal of cameras from all public sites was defended on the basis that places like recycling centres, leisure centres, schools, or hospitals are not typically of interest to a hostile state. Lord Alton disagreed with this argument but welcomed the concessions made by the government.