House of Commons · Bill Debate
13 September 2023 · 7 other contributors
Opened by Alex Burghart Con Brentwood and Ongar
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Alex Burghart raised concerns about procurement bill - lords amendment 102b in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
I urge this House to reject Lords amendment 102B for a number of reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary as organ harvesting is already dealt with under existing provisions in the Procurement Bill. Secondly, the amendment has significant consequences for contracting authorities by extending exclusion grounds to suppliers dealing in devices or equipment relating to forced organ harvesting. Thirdly, the Government are already taking steps to tackle organ harvesting.
Acknowledges difficulties with the amendment but supports its intent. Proposes tightening up supply chain due diligence and suggesting China be on enhanced tier of foreign agents registration scheme.
Supports specific mention of forced organ harvesting in the Bill to highlight the issue, increase vigilance among procurement companies, and send a strong message against the practice.
Ms Blackman supports the amendment, stating it should not be beyond companies to investigate their supply chains for forced organ harvesting. She emphasises that companies bidding for Government contracts should uphold human rights and corporate social responsibility.
Ms Rimmer argues the amendment is necessary to prevent British taxpayers’ money from funding forced organ harvesting. She cites evidence of systematic medical testing in China, and mentions companies with substantial UK operations providing immunosuppressive drugs for transplants in China where there is no consent.
Mr Duncan Smith interjects to suggest that the US Government enforces supply chain declarations using companies like Oritain for rigorous testing. He recommends similar measures to the Foreign Office.
Argues that existing provisions relating to professional misconduct already cover unethical practices, making specific mention of organ harvesting unnecessary. Points out that singling out this practice would impose an excessive burden on small businesses without evidence of risk in UK procurement chains.
Noted procedural details about a deferred Division and its resumption after the current vote.