Security Update

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is timely that we are having a security update today. My thoughts and the thoughts of my colleagues are with all those impacted by 9/11 on its anniversary.

I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the issues relating to sensitive Government sites and cameras, but Members on both sides of the House had to ask questions on Hikvision for months before the Government took any action. Will they commit to acting more quickly in future, and will the Procurement Bill, as he states, allow that to happen?

I am glad to hear that the response to the ISC report is coming. Will the Government also commit to implementing the recommendations of the ISC report on Russian interference in British politics? Hopefully that response will also come soon.

To turn to some specific questions, when did the Deputy Prime Minister himself learn of these allegations and arrests? Why did MPs only learn of this from The Times? Will the Government institute, as soon as possible, a review into the decision-making process that led to MPs not being told, in order that such critical updates are given to MPs in future and that this decision-making process is never allowed to happen again?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to be very careful here. This is a major security issue and it would be wrong to expect to break all that in order to brief MPs. The MPs who needed to be told were told and worked very closely on this. Please, be very careful. I think my earlier statement addressed some of the points, but, if need be, we can re-address things.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Last year, the Prime Minister said that his Government would do “everything we can” to recover covid fraud losses, yet the crony PPE VIP lane helped Tory-linked business owners over small and medium-sized businesses, meaning that £15 billion of taxpayer money was wasted on useless PPE. The Public Accounts Committee found it “unacceptable” that the Government are not prioritising recouping misused money, with only £21 million—only 2%—recovered from fraudsters. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to fulfil his Government’s pledge to reclaim misused taxpayer money? Or is that, like the Prime Minister’s promise of integrity and accountability, another failed vow?

[Oliver Dowden]

What we saw during the crisis was the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor, acting decisively and rapidly to save the economy and millions of jobs. Since we have passed out of the covid period, we are taking action to recover fraud and error losses. As set out by my hon. Friends, in the past two years alone, we have recovered more than £3 billion. I would gently say to the hon. Lady that people in glasshouses should perhaps not throw stones, given the experience of her party’s leaders being frogmarched by the police to investigate the misuse of funds by her own party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is clear from their actions that the Tories want to privatise our health service, selling data from England’s NHS to a Trump-backed business, Palantir, under a £27 million data deal. This was done without a competitive tender. Not only that, but they also accepted a £5 million donation from a rich health tycoon this week. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree with me that the only way to guarantee protection and integrity for Scotland’s NHS is to keep it out of Westminster Tory hands and keep it in the hands of the people of Scotland?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The hon. Lady will know, because she sat on the Procurement Bill Committee, that we have a new procurement regime coming in, but in the case she refers to it is my understanding that everything was above board and in line with due process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The failed London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey has been given a life peerage in Boris Johnson’s list, despite his “Jingle and Mingle” 2020 Christmas party. Does the Minister agree that someone who has failed to be elected on three occasions and flouted the laws that the rest of us stuck to during lockdown should not be offered a life peerage?

[Alex Burghart]

The honourable gentleman in question, as the hon. Lady will know, was also a very long-standing member of the London Assembly, and was successfully elected on a number of occasions to fill that role. Obviously, reports of the party in question are unacceptable. We condemn that event, but as she will have heard me say to her colleague, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the list has gone to the sovereign and been approved.

[Kirsty Blackman]

There is a bit of unedifying silliness in the Chamber this morning. We are absolutely beside ourselves that we seemingly cannot do anything about this, and the Government are not taking any responsibility. Just because something has been convention since 1985 does not mean that we should continue doing it. If the antics of the dishonourable member for the Chiltern hundreds were not bad enough, convention now dictates that the 49-day former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who crashed the economy, which directly contributed to the mortgage rate rises that people are struggling with, will also get to make nominations. Why is even more power and privilege being awarded to those who have caused untold misery and hardship?

[Alex Burghart]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and those of 26 others in the House of all parties.

The real issue here is the existence of a specific law in China that makes pretty much all companies in China, but particularly those involved in technology, a public risk in procurement to the United Kingdom. Article 7 of the People’s Republic of China national intelligence law 2017 states:

“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”

In other words, under the Chinese national intelligence law, they must completely comply with all demands and requests for information in the business they are in, and deny they have done that to any other country or authority that asks. We have had Chinese companies coming to the House and lying to Select Committees about what they are doing, all saying that they have no obligations under the national intelligence law. They do have obligations under that law and they will lie for their country as a result.

We need to start by understanding the problems, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having listened to the arguments and changed the terms, first by referencing the national intelligence law, which is very important, because many Departments will play fast and loose unless what they must do is made very clear. We have been encouraging the Government, who came out with views on Hikvision, Dahua and other companies supplying surveillance equipment to the UK, knowing that they are a surveillance risk not because they are cameras in a particular fashion but because what they glean is available completely to the Chinese authorities under the national security laws.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the small devices—a growing threat that I have not referenced but which also gets caught by the national intelligence law. China is leading in this technology, which is one way in which it can keep track of its own people, but they are now using it more broadly. I had a suspicion and heard that the cars that my hon. Friend was referencing were Downing Street cars. There is a very good chance that the Prime Minister and others may have been tracked by the Chinese Government without our knowledge.

We must therefore remember that first and foremost China poses a significant threat to us, our interests and the way we live our lives. Until we all agree and come to those terms, we simply cannot move on; that is the key. Government Departments and the Government have dragged their feet over this because we do not want to upset the Chinese—but it takes a lot to upset the Chinese because they carry on as before. The amendment is intended to get the Government to accept that we should reference the national intelligence law because that defines all Chinese business and companies and therefore they are a threat.

There are other Chinese companies that are a problem that will not be named, and surveillance cameras are part of this. I must confess that when my brother-in-law went around an area of a farm looking at the surveillance cameras, he spotted that they were Hikvision cameras—they are not listed in the contract because the contract provider is a UK organisation, but we discovered that they are everywhere.

Once I heard the news that the Government clearly wanted Departments to get rid of those cameras, I made a set of freedom of information requests to all Departments about whether they had cameras, where they were, whether they were on their buildings, and what plans they had to get rid of them, having spotted that a lot of Departments still had them, including the Ministry of Defence. All Departments—bar I think the Wales Office, which came clean and said it did not have any or was getting rid of them—claimed that, under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they did not have to answer because it was a security risk. The security risk is having the cameras, not answering the damned question! Excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about where the cameras are and what they are doing, and that is the point of the amendment.

I hope that Ministers will take this matter forward and tell Departments to stop obfuscating. If they are asked a direct question they should tell the honest truth and explain that under the new rules under the Bill they will be getting rid of those cameras, which is absolutely critical.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on national security, particularly the risk posed by this equipment. I credit him and others across the House who have worked to encourage the Government to move on this matter. As well as the national security issue, does he share my concern that companies such as Hikvision are involved in human rights abuses in China, for example with the Uyghur Muslims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is not the subject of the amendment but I will touch on it briefly. I have already spoken to the unions on this and I am very much in line with their position. The Government need to look very carefully at what has taken place, particularly because it reduces competition in the market. The links to the authoritarianism of the Chinese is one of the big worries, so I suggest that the Government have a serious look at that.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), these cameras are also being used in internal suppression in China. We know about the suppression of the Uyghurs; that is a genocide that is taking place. Even though the Government will not say it is genocide, everybody else believes it is: Parliament here has said it; the Americans have now said it; and so, too, have many other countries. I do not know why we cannot say this is genocide, but that is a question for another debate. The fact is that many of these instruments are being used as part of that suppression in the camps as well as to watch carefully so that suppression can take place. Right now, forced labour, forced sterilisation and re-education in camps are all taking place in China.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) referred from the Dispatch Box to the Opposition’s amendments. It is worth reminding her that China poses a risk in just about every single area with its human rights abuses and abuses of workers’ rights, yet so many of our companies want to ignore that.

While I welcome much of what the Government have done, I do not plan to move new clause 1 today, but only because I want more from the Government. I think they understand that.

I come back to the “sensitive” point. The truth is that, by definition, all Government Departments must be sensitive. As I said, I spent six years in charge of the DWP, and what I know is that there is arguably no more sensitive Department, because stopping payments for one or two days from the DWP would wreak havoc across the United Kingdom. People would not be able to get money to pay their rent, to buy their food or to live—all those things of vital importance. So a foreign power might be able to use information to target a Department such as the DWP that is not on the list because it may not appear as sensitive as the Ministry of Defence, GCHQ or—God bless us—the Foreign Office, when in reality, it is much more sensitive.

When we try to use a word like “sensitive” to give ourselves a little bit of a break, the problem becomes: who defines sensitive, and how often we will redefine it? I recommend that the Government describe all Departments as sensitive or else get rid of the word. That would put the onus on the Departments to come to the Cabinet Office to say, “We need an exemption for a period” or, “We can’t do this as fast.” The current wording means that they will not have to do that if they are outwith the term “sensitive.”

The reality is that we have had a number of Dispatch Box commitments from a load of Government Ministers about interpreting these things, but they never come to fruition. We were promised guidance in the other place on slavery during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, but that was never put in. We really want the Government to commit at the Dispatch Box to changing what they are doing with “sensitive” when the Bill goes to the other place. “Sensitive” is too weak a position. It lets Departments off the hook and will put all the onus on the Cabinet Office. That must be reversed to ensure that this removal gets done.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I really appreciate the right hon. Member giving way again. Would he consider asking the Government for removal from all sites and, when they produce their timeline, to have them say, “These are our priority sites, which will be done first, but there will be removal from all sites off the back of that”? That would cover removal from all sites but allow the Government to prioritise if they cannot do things overnight.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree that that would be the common-sense way of doing it; I think we are all on the same page on this one.

The thing about our new clause is that, without the word “sensitive”, the position is simple. The new clause uses the same language as the Cabinet Office’s announcement in November, which recommended the removal of Chinese CCTV from sensitive sites. Now, that was the wording. Okay. But when we ask, “What has happened? How many Departments have felt under pressure to do that?”, we start to discover that they are not doing it because it is too difficult, and they want the requirement to go away. My answer is: do not use the word “sensitive” in that respect. It is about national security law, and Government Departments must either be completely defined as “sensitive”—if we want to use that word—or be bound to rid themselves of all companies obligated under the national security law. If they are unable to do that, they must make their case so that we can question that publicly and comment about what is going on.

I conclude on this simple point. The new clause is there to try to make it clear that we face a most significant and dangerous threat from the Chinese Communist party in control of China today. It is everywhere. It is using slave labour to produce polysilicon to collect solar rays. We all beat our chests proudly and proclaim that we are heading towards net zero, but on whose backs is that? It is people working in slave labour conditions to produce these things, people under surveillance, and people taken away on genocides. A Government already doing this internally are now referring it out to us. We must make it clear beyond peradventure that Government Departments must now rid themselves of equipment and never place contracts with other companies on equipment that comes under the rule of the national security law. I am looking for commitments from the Government today that, by the time the Bill gets to the other place, that will finally be resolved. If so, they will have my approval and that of many others in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

This House, this country and the British public have a long history of supporting human rights. That is why I rise to support amendment 3 in my name. It is signed by Members from across this House.

Up to 100,000 people are brutally butchered for their organs in the People’s Republic of China. It is industrial-scale, state-sponsored organ harvesting, now a nationwide industry worth more than £800 million. The average age of victims is 28. That is not a mere coincidence: 28 is considered by the Chinese Communist party to be the best age for organ harvesting. Hundreds of thousands are kept in internment camps until they are ripe for slaughter. Two or three organs from healthy young adults—28—are worth up to half a million pounds.

The evidence for this crime is growing by the day. The China and Uyghur tribunals, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, former lead prosecutor at The Hague, concluded that Falun Gong, a peaceful religious movement, was the primary target. Worse still, the Chinese Communist authorities have now added the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, some Christians and other prisoners of conscience. The tribunals heard reliable evidence of Uyghur Muslims being subjected to comprehensive blood testing and the collection of DNA, which would allow the oppressive regime to create an organ bank, ready for withdrawals on demand.

Forced organ harvesting is an evil practice that this Government should be doing all they can to stop. At present, there are no specific restrictions on suppliers who are involved in forced organ harvesting. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister stated that this Bill was not the appropriate place to address this issue. I could not disagree more. The hard-earned money of our constituents is free to be used propping up this evil atrocity, but that is not right in a country that prides itself on supporting human rights. We all have a duty to our constituents to make sure they are not inadvertently supporting organ harvesting, or any crime indeed. The Minister also said that forced organ harvesting would already be covered on the grounds of professional misconduct. We have heard that before, only for it to turn out, once a Bill becomes law, that it is not covered. On professional misconduct, may I provide just one example? Once when a surgeon was removing organs, he noticed—he went into a cold sweat—that the body he was operating on was in shock: he was still alive. Professional misconduct!

Forced organ harvesting is not an issue to take such a chance on; it needs specific references relating to this crime against humanity. Last month’s G7 heard our Prime Minister state that we need to work together with our allies to “de-risk” ourselves from China. In the United States, Congressman Chris Smith has introduced a Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Bill, which the House of Representatives almost unanimously supported—straight across. This amendment keeps us in line with our allies. Last November, the Prime Minister delivered his big foreign policy speech and said, on our relationship with China, that

“we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values… And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.”

This amendment is robust pragmatism in practice. It is not grand rhetoric, but action— action to make sure we are strong in defending our values; action to make sure public money is not supporting a crime against humanity; action that this whole House can be proud of, as it always has been on human rights.

I urge Members from across the House to support amendment 3 to keep our hands clean from this evil practice of forced organ harvesting. We must not continue to turn a blind eye to these horrendous breaches of human rights. Governments across the world need to step up on this. We need to be working together, for—believe you me—China would be far more difficult than Russia.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate. Everyone has had the opportunity to speak on their own amendments and I find myself trying to speak on everyone’s amendments. I will do my best but if I miss anyone’s it is not personal—it is just that there are a lot of them. I will try to focus on those we are expected to vote on and some that we feel most passionately about.

I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the positions of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and recognising that they are consistent with previous positions on trade deals. We consistently believe there is overreach in extending into devolved areas and that is why legislative consent has been withheld on this occasion. Since Brexit particularly, the UK Parliament has been meddling in devolved areas, or allowing itself the power to do so, far more than previously. That is one of the many unfortunate consequences of “bringing back power”: it is power to the Executive, not so much to the devolved Administrations or the rest of us in Parliament.

This Bill is key because the spending of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of, and on behalf of, taxpayers is a hugely powerful and important method the Government can use to ensure that they serve citizens in the best possible way, and that they support behaviours that they want to support and reject those they want to reject, in much the same way as tax laws and new tax measures can be created and implemented to discourage or encourage certain behaviours. There is an opportunity in the Procurement Bill and public procurement to do more than the Government have done in encouraging behaviour.

A number of amendments from Opposition Front Benchers specifically focus on that. I am pleased to see the tax transparency amendment, new clause 10. It makes sense to ask companies to be open and upfront about how much tax they are paying. It is very difficult to find out some of this information and it makes a huge amount of sense that decisions around public procurement could and should be made on the basis of considering whether companies are actually paying the tax they are or should be liable for here.

Amendment 2 from the Opposition on transparency declarations is also incredibly sensible. A number of Members around the House have mentioned the VIP lanes and the fact that there were fast-track contracts in relation to covid. The amendment strikes the right balance. The Government say we need to have fast-track processes and to be able to award contracts quickly. Amendment 2 would still allow that to happen. It would allow the speed that is necessary in emergencies and crises such as covid. It would allow procurement to happen speedily, but would increase the transparency; whether it is an MP, a peer, a senior civil servant or a Minister, a transparency declaration would be required. We wholeheartedly support that amendment.

I turn to amendment 18 on breaching staff rights. The amendment is once again about trying to encourage the behaviour we want to see. We want to see public money, public spending and public contracts going to companies who treat their workers fairly and do not breach workers’ rights. The amendment sets a high bar on exclusion from public procurement as it is specifically about excluding those companies found guilty by an employment tribunal or a court; it not just on the basis of one whistleblower whose case may not yet have been proven. Once again, we wholeheartedly support that.

Covid 19 Inquiry: Judicial Review

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. As has been said, this is a serious and important inquiry for all of us whose lives were impacted by covid, particularly those who lost loved ones.

This matter is one of the most bizarre things that we have dealt with recently—and this has been a wild few years. What is the point in having an inquiry if those carrying it out are not confident that they have all the relevant information? Actually, the inquiry is not being given the information; the information is being given to the Government, and the Cabinet Office is then filtering it and passing it on to the inquiry. If those conducting the inquiry, which the Government set up, are asking for this information, then they should be given it.

May I ask the Minister about the group of people who are looking at the information? Who are the counsel team that are involved in considering the relevance of the information alongside the witnesses? Are any politicians who are, or were formerly, in the Cabinet, other than the witnesses themselves, involved in the decision making about whether the information is relevant? How can we be clear and confident that this inquiry will have all the relevant information if we do not even know who is taking the decisions or how the decisions are being taken? As for the information that we do have, we have had to pull it out of the Government.

We have talked before about the breaches of the ministerial code, and the fact that it was entirely in the gift of the Prime Minister to decide whether or not a person was investigated in relation to the code. Once again, the Cabinet Office is holding something in its own grip and refusing to allow the rest of us any say in, or any look at, what is happening. Who watches the watchers in this regard? Who is considering whether the transparency that is being shown is actually being shown properly?

Any answers that the Minister can provide will be much appreciated.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This is a descent into absolute farce. Instead of the professionalism, accountability and integrity that the Prime Minister promised when he came into office, we are faced with calamity, chaos and corruption. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) continues to be investigated, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) had to leave Cabinet in disgrace, and we are seeing revelation after revelation about the misdeeds and wrongdoings of the Home Secretary. First there was the request to organise a personal speed awareness course, and today we have the revelation that the Home Secretary did not disclose her extensive work with the Africa Justice Foundation, 19 alumni of which are now in senior positions in the Rwandan Government.

How can the Prime Minister continue to pretend that he is presiding over a Government with anything other than their own personal interests at heart? Is it not the case that the people of Scotland and all the people of these isles would be better served by politicians who understand and stick to the principles of public life in the ministerial code? Will the Prime Minister ensure that an investigation is undertaken into all the alleged ministerial code breaches? What is the point in having a ministerial code if Ministers simply ignore it?

[Jeremy Quin]

As I said earlier, there is information being gathered, and that will be the first point to determine the next steps. It is always interesting to hear from the SNP about farcical situations with ethics. The one advantage of a campervan, I suppose, is that it does not go very fast.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On 25 April, I put in a written parliamentary question asking the Minister to publish the guidance. He did not publish it in response to my question. I came here today convinced that I would have to make a freedom of information request to get that guidance. Why, having refused to publish the guidance in his answer to me on 3 May, is the Minister now saying that he will publish it? What is happening here? Why was he unwilling to publish the guidance in response to the normal parliamentary method of putting in a written question?

[Jeremy Quin]

It may shock the hon. Lady, and I apologise, but I cannot recall her exact parliamentary question. I recall the parliamentary question of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), in which I believe he asked if it was my intention to publish the guidance. It was not our intention to publish it, but I have nothing to hide and am very happy to publish it. It is internal guidance; it will be adapted by different Departments. It is sensible to have guidance to ensure that civil servants know what they should be doing when invitations are issued to people who will be paid and given a platform in, and could cause embarrassment to, the civil service.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the response to my written question last week, I was told that the due diligence and impartiality guidelines

“avoid invitations being issued to individuals and/or organisations that have provided adverse commentary on government policy, political decisions, approaches or individuals in government”,

in order to “retain impartiality” in the civil service. That is the opposite of what the Government are asking universities to do in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Why is there one rule for the Government and another rule for universities? How is it impartial to only allow civil servants to hear speakers who agree with the Government?

[Jeremy Quin]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has not had the opportunity to do so, and I look forward to her having that opportunity, but if she were to read on from the phrase that she quoted, which I assume appeared in the press, it refers to “adverse commentary” on Government policy

“that could undermine the Civil Service’s position on impartiality and create reputational damage.”

The guidance goes on to say that it is entirely possible for contrarian views—views critical of Government policy—to be shared with those who are at the point of policy formation. I want my civil servants to be fully informed of the arguments against Government policy. What is not appropriate is to have individuals paid and given a platform to create embarrassment for the civil service and potentially for the UK as a whole.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We have ministerial declarations—interests list—that are updated not timeously, if they are updated at all. Will the Minister ensure that all ministerial declarations are published, not just those of Ministers who happen to have been sitting in the hot seat when the music stopped? We have Ministers and the Prime Minister announcing policy to the press first on a regular basis. The Prime Minister has lost numerous Ministers as a result of code breaches and there are various investigations ongoing. It seems that Ministers are happy to carry on erring until the point—beyond the point, in fact—that they are caught and until the point that the investigation finally reports and they finally choose to resign. What is the point in having a ministerial code if Ministers do not abide by either the letter or the spirit of that code, and continually breach it?

[Alex Burghart]

I think the hon. Lady is arguing for no due process. The moment that formal allegations were made against the former Deputy Prime Minister, both he and the Prime Minister decided it would be necessary to call an independent investigation into the Deputy Prime Minister’s conduct. That was conducted by a leading KC and, following the conclusion, the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. The alternative would have been to have no investigation at all—no independent assessment—and in our opinion that would have been wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In December, the Committee on Standards in Public Life said it was concerned that 18 months had been lost because of the Government’s failure to respond to its report “Upholding Standards in Public Life”, which recommended stronger rules and a better compliance culture for central Government. When can we expect a formal response from the Government?

[Oliver Dowden]

We are working through the responses. Clearly, a new Administration came in in November, but we will shortly be in a position to publish all the responses to the report. I am working through it with the Prime Minister and publication will come shortly.

[Kirsty Blackman]

How can we be assured of transparency and integrity in decision making if we do not have a register of Ministers’ interests that has been published any time in the past 10 months?

[Oliver Dowden]

The Government will publish the latest version of that register shortly. The House has discussed and considered this issue, and the hon. Lady may have heard the comments made by the Leader of the House. We are moving to a situation in which we both produce the transparency returns more rapidly and align them more closely with the parliamentary register, but it is important that we get the systems in place so that that can be done properly.

Security of Government Devices

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

As ever, my hon. Friend raises some very important points. On the Procurement Bill, of course we continue to engage with Members on both sides of the House as we approach Report. I know that Ministers in my Department are meeting the hon. Lady about the amendments that she proposes. In respect of this legislation, we have taken a very big step forward. For the first time, contracting authorities across the public sector can reject tenders from suppliers that pose a threat to national security, including where that threat arises from a parent or subsidiary company, so we are both lowering the bar and increasing the power. We did not have any of those powers when were in the European Union, so this is a significant step forward and I am very happy to look at further amendments that can build on those proposals.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement. I agree with other Members that this is a welcome and proportionate step by the Government. It is good to see that, in some areas, the UK Government are taking seriously the risk of highly sensitive data being accessed and used by bad actors. I wish to ask a couple of questions. First, how will the Government ensure that these guidelines are adhered to by Ministers and by civil servants using Government devices? Will the Government ensure that the information and evidence they have compiled is shared with Parliament’s security advisers to ensure that MPs are given the best and most up-to-date advice possible, in particular on apps that use geolocation data?

The Government have been dragging their heels around a number of security risks. A number of companies—including Huawei, TikTok and Hikvision—pose human rights risks and, in some cases, it has taken too long to close down or mitigate those risks. For example, Hikvision cameras are still being used, despite their being involved in human rights atrocities, for the facial recognition of Uyghur Muslims in mosques. The issue is not just the safety and security of our citizens but that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund companies that are committing atrocities. When will the Government take a look at the wider situation to ensure that we are not, by the back door, propping up regimes and companies that commit atrocities and human rights abuses?