4 Nov 2014 : Column 680
4 Nov 2014 : Column 681
That Fiona Bruce, Rosie Cooper, Mrs Mary Glindon, Kate Hoey, Pauline Latham, Naomi Long, Fiona Mactaggart, Sheryll Murray, Tessa Munt, Caroline Nokes, Sarah Teather and Dame Angela Watkinson present the Bill.
Fiona Bruce accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015,and to be printed (Bill 112).
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and I divided the House so that it would have the opportunity to express its view. May I put it on the record that both of us support my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the measure? I have been advised by many right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government and who abstained, as is usual practice, that they, too, would have supported it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): As the House is well aware, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is certainly on the record.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As has just been mentioned, there is a convention that Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and members of the shadow Cabinet and their PPSs do not vote on ten-minute rule Bills. Will you confirm to the House that when the Bill receives a Second Reading, there will be a further opportunity to vote on it, and that the usual convention that it should be a conscience vote will apply?
Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order for me to advise people how to vote, but I am sure they will reflect on that when they read Hansard tomorrow.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 682
modern slavery bill (programme) (no. 2)
That the Order of 8 July 2014 (Modern Slavery Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.—(John Penrose.)
4 Nov 2014 : Column 683
Modern Slavery Bill
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
“Transparency in supply chains etc
‘(1) A commercial organisation within subsection (2) must prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement for each financial year of the organisation.
(2) A commercial organisation is within this subsection if it—
(a) supplies goods or services, and
(b) has a total turnover of not less than an amount prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), an organisation’s total turnover is to be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) A slavery and human trafficking statement for a financial year is—
(a) a statement of the steps the organisation has taken during the financial year to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place—
(i) in any of its supply chains, and
(ii) in any part of its own business, or
(b) a statement that the organisation has taken no such steps.
(5) If the organisation has a website, it must—
(a) publish the slavery and human trafficking statement on that website, and
(b) include a link to the slavery and human trafficking statement in a prominent place on that website’s homepage.
(6) If the organisation does not have a website, it must provide a copy of the slavery and human trafficking statement to anyone who makes a written request for one, and must do so before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the request is received.
(a) may issue guidance about the duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section;
(b) must publish any such guidance in a way the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(8) The guidance may in particular include guidance about the kind of information which may be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement.
(9) The duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings in the High Court for an injunction or, in Scotland, for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.
(10) For the purposes of this section—
“commercial organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate (wherever incorporated) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) a partnership (wherever formed) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom,and for this purpose “business” includes a trade or profession;
(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890,(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or(c) a firm, or an entity of a similar character, formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom;
4 Nov 2014 : Column 684
“slavery and human trafficking” means—
(a) conduct which constitutes an offence under any of the following—(b) conduct which would constitute an offence in a part of the United Kingdom under any of those provisions if the conduct took place in that part of the United Kingdom.”
.
—
(Karen Bradley.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
This New Clause requires businesses over a certain size to disclose annually what steps they have taken to ensure that slavery or human trafficking is not taking place in any of their supply chains or their own business through a statement published on their website, if they have one
.
1.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—Duty on large UK companies to report efforts to eradicate modern slavery and forced labour—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than 5 October 2015,—
(a) make regulations under section 416(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about modern slavery and forced labour in the supply chain for which the company is responsible, or
(b) lay before Parliament a report explaining why no such regulations have been made.
(2) Regulations made under section (1)(a) must be in force in relation to quoted companies by 6 January 2016 and in relation to large private companies as the Secretary of State believes to be appropriate by 2 January 2018.
(3) Subsection (1)(a) is complied with if regulations are made containing provision in relation to the company’s reporting of work in the following areas—
(a) accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence;
(b) investigation, monitoring and auditing of modern slavery and forced labour risks in the UK and throughout their global supply chains;
(c) support and access to remedy for victims of forced labour and modern slavery; and
(d) training of staff and suppliers, access to expertise and advice.
(4) No regulations made under this section shall apply to small companies as defined by section 381 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).”
New clause 15—Legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to ensure that a person benefiting from an offence under section 1 or 2 of this Act committed by a third party shall have committed an offence where—
(a) the third party acted for that person’s benefit; and
(b) their lack of supervision or control made possible for committing of the offence by the third party.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
4 Nov 2014 : Column 685
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward measures along the lines set out in EU Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings.
New clause 14—Ban on importation of goods produced by slavery or forced labour—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have the power to prohibit the import at any point of entry to the United Kingdom of any good, ware, article, or product mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country that can be demonstrably shown to have been produced by slavery, forced labour, child labour or with the involvement of human trafficking.
(2) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the enforcement of this provision;
(b) co-ordinate with and issue guidance to the Treasury, HMRC, devolved authorities and any other relevant public authority in relation to the exercise by them of their powers and responsibilities under this Clause; and
(c) have a duty to publish and maintain information on banned goods including a publicly available list of products which there is a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced, or manufactured in the circumstances described in section (1).
(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a process whereby a petition can be made by any person, public authority or organisation who has reason to believe that goods produced in the circumstances in section (1) are being or are likely to be imported into the UK to communicate theses concerns to the relevant authority. Every such communication shall contain—
(a) a full statement of reasons for the claim;
(b) a detailed description or example of the product; and
(c) all relevant information regarding the production of the good.”
This would allow for the banning of the import of any product produced by slavery, convict, forced or indentured labour, including child labour.
Karen Bradley: It is a pleasure to open this important debate. Modern slavery in supply chains is an issue that this Government take extremely seriously and have been considering very closely for some time. Tackling modern slavery is not only about catching the perpetrators; it is about making sure that we as consumers and businesses do not inadvertently fuel the demand for slave labour. We do not want businesses in the UK to have any connection to these abhorrent crimes, and UK consumers should not be put in the position where they inadvertently buy goods that could have been produced by individuals who are abused and enslaved.
The Government have been listening carefully to the views of NGOs, businesses and parliamentarians on this issue. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members here today have been campaigning on it for a long time, and their contributions and insight have been invaluable in developing our thinking. I would particularly like to thank the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill, who collected such valuable evidence, and the chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), for his leadership. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Slough
4 Nov 2014 : Column 686
(Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who have both tabled private Members’ Bills on this topic and have campaigned so tirelessly.
The Government have always been committed to encouraging businesses to take action on modern slavery, but I and the Home Secretary wanted to make sure that any further legislative changes were of real value and would not confuse existing arrangements. Having considered carefully the evidence and calls for change, I believe that we can improve the legislative framework further to encourage business to take action. That is why I am extremely pleased that we have brought forward new clause 11, which will require organisations carrying on a business in the UK above a certain size threshold to disclose each year what they have done to ensure that there is no modern slavery in their supply chains or their organisation. Once businesses are required to disclose what they are doing to tackle modern slavery, consumers, shareholders and campaigners will have a better understanding of what action each business is taking, and can call for more action if they think more is needed.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I am glad that the Minister is introducing this clause. May I ask two questions? When companies report, will the Government comment? Will the new independent anti-slavery commissioner be expected to comment and try to raise the standards of firms?
Karen Bradley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. Later in my remarks I will come to how we envisage the provision working. I hope that will address his concerns.
Many businesses are already taking steps to eliminate modern slavery. Once it is clear what activity major businesses are undertaking, we expect that public pressure and competition between businesses will encourage those who have not taken decisive steps to do so. Introducing this measure is an important step, and that is why we want to get it right. The provision does not specify the size of business on the face of the Bill. That is because we genuinely want to listen to businesses and stakeholders about the best possible approach and we will formally consult on the threshold level.
Our thoughts are that this provision should apply to large companies in the first instance. We will consult fully on the threshold and then set the threshold through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that Parliament has the final say on the initial threshold, and can subsequently review and amend it over time, if required. We will also produce statutory guidance to accompany this provision, setting out the kinds of information that might be included in a disclosure, so that companies understand and have the support they need to comply. Again, we will consult on what information should be in the guidance, working with businesses and other interested parties so that they have a good understanding of what information might be used to comply with the disclosure requirement.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con):
Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I am glad that the measure is being included in
4 Nov 2014 : Column 687
the Bill. Can my hon. Friend give us an idea of the time scale involved in the consultations and when we might see the resulting legislation?
Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend deserves credit for campaigning tirelessly on this and other issues related to modern slavery. I will come on later to how we envisage the process working. We are considering an appropriate timetable. As he will appreciate, we have to get the balance right between letting both Houses have their say and the need to make progress.
Sir John Randall: I look forward to hearing further details. We are all aware that over the weekend, for example, there was a furore about T-shirts. That emphasises that many companies think they are free of slavery, but they are not. We must sure that we get on with the measure, because it is important.
Karen Bradley: I take my right hon. Friend’s comments and will ensure that they are considered in the process. He is right that one of the difficulties and one of the reasons that we have considered the matter carefully is that many businesses are trying hard to comply, but we need to help them and support them to do so. That is why it was vital that we spent time consulting businesses to make sure that we came up with an effective approach that would make a difference.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): The Minister has not spelled out any dates. The matter has gone through the Joint Committee, it has been debated and there have been various hearings. New clause 11 says that the Secretary of State “may issue guidance”. What we are not getting is any sense of the operational requirements on a company such as Tesco, which was benefiting from slave labour in the fishing industry in Thailand. What would companies be required to do operationally under this guidance?
Karen Bradley: I will come, as I said, to how we envisage the measure working. My hon. Friend reflects exactly the balance that we are trying to achieve between getting on as quickly as possible and letting Parliament have its say to make sure that we reflect what Parliament wishes in this respect.
2 pm
The statutory guidance will only be guidance. We will not tell businesses what a disclosure must include, and we fully expect disclosures to differ from company to company, which is why the Bill does not specify what information a disclosure must contain. Businesses will be at different levels of maturity and will work in very different sectors, so what is applicable to one might not be applicable to others. We therefore believe that well-constructed guidance is the best approach.
In developing that provision, we looked carefully at the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010, which is often cited as the first Act to address transparency issues. We recognised that any measure seeking to address the issue must create a level playing field, which is why we decided not to follow the amendment to the Companies Act 2006 proposed by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. The duty in that Act applies only to public limited companies. Our measure will require all companies over a certain size to disclose what they are doing to ensure that there is no slavery in their supply chains.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 688
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): My hon. Friend refers to the proposed amendment to the Companies Act. Does she accept that when Parliament put forward a human rights disclosure requirement, it was plainly the intention that it should also include supply chains?
Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend, who was such a committed member of the Public Bill Committee, makes an important point. The Government have already legislated to require companies to disclose in their annual reports under the Companies Act that they respect human rights throughout their business. We wanted to ensure that there was a further requirement on slavery, so we ensured that there was full transparency on slavery in supply chains in addition to the requirement that we have already included in the Companies Act.
Mr Frank Field: I take the Minister’s point about the Government’s approach being superior to our proposal to amend the Companies Act. One of the advantages of her approach is that the proposed legislation will cover those companies that are large but are owned offshore. We want to bring them within the ambit of the Act, because they are really important traders in this country.
Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. This is about ensuring that any company doing business in the UK makes transparent disclosures on the action it has taken on slavery in its supply chains. We want UK consumers to understand what actions have been taken by the businesses they transact with so that they can then put pressure on them if they feel that not enough is being doing. The Government will be able to help those companies through the guidance we issue on the action they may take that would give consumers the reassurance they need. We have also improved on the California model by capturing any commercial organisation that produces not only goods but services.
We are also looking at public sector procurement, recognising that modern slavery could happen anywhere. All public sector suppliers are already required to comply with relevant human rights and employment law, and EU procurement rules require contracting authorities to exclude suppliers that have been convicted of certain offences. Social responsibility information is also sought annually from Government suppliers, including details of the steps taken and planned by suppliers in the areas of ethical procurement and supply chain management.
I will now turn to new clause 5, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, which would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 416(4) of the Companies Act 2006 so that quoted companies and certain large private companies are required to include in their directors’ reports information relating to modern slavery and forced labour in the supply chain. It is fair to say that we are all trying to achieve the same aim—ensuring that the supply chains of UK businesses are free from slave labour—but the ways in which we are seeking to do that may well differ. In considering this important issue, we have looked at a number of approaches, including amending the Companies Act and, in particular, the Companies Act amendment proposed by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 689
I believe that introducing a specific provision in the Modern Slavery Bill, rather than in the Companies Act, sends out a clear signal that the UK will not tolerate any form of modern slavery. It also explicitly raises the profile of the issue by ensuring that the provisions are front and centre of what the Bill and this Government are trying to achieve: to stamp out modern slavery in all its forms. I think that all of us in this House are trying to achieve that. Those who disclose little or no action risk their reputation and, ultimately, their profits.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—he, too, served on the Public Bill Committee—would ban the import of any product produced by slavery, forced or child labour or human trafficking. As I have said, I believe that slavery in all its forms is abhorrent. The provisions we have brought forward to increase transparency in supply chains are both effective and proportionate. It would simply not be feasible for UK agencies to police the import of goods on the basis of whether they had been produced using slave labour. We need those trading with companies in other jurisdictions to apply due diligence and take decisive action where they believe that slave labour is being used. Waiting until the point when products are being imported into the UK is simply too late. That is why it is for businesses to take action to check their supply chains and for the Government to influence and encourage other Governments to do more, such as by improving the application of their employment laws or their approach to human rights issues.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I thank the Minister for working so hard to introduce new clause 11, which I very much welcome. Will she cover the point raised in an earlier intervention about the role of the anti-slavery commissioner? As she will know, the terms of reference were discussed in Committee. It would be useful to know whether the Government think that the commissioner’s remit will include looking at company reports and assessing how effective they are.
Karen Bradley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and for all his work, not only in the Public Bill Committee but in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—he has truly lived this issue for most of this year, so I know how committed he is. I think that policing the measure is a matter for us all. In particular, the non-governmental organisations that work on victim protection—I discussed this with them last week—have such an important role to play in bringing to our attention those companies that they believe are not doing the compliance and disclosure that we all expect. We will move on to the specifics of the anti-slavery commissioner’s role later in the debate. My emphasis for the commissioner is on identifying victims and then ensuring that we get prosecutions in order to protect victims. The role is not so much about policing the supply chain measure. Obviously, as the commissioner’s role develops, we may see new issues come to the fore.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con):
I commend my hon. Friend for listening to Members on both sides of the House regarding the supply chain issue and bringing forward this new clause. Does she agree that the strongest policing of the issue will come from the
4 Nov 2014 : Column 690
large companies at the head of supply chains, because they have the infrastructure really to do due diligence and stamp out slavery down the line? The proportionate way in which she is introducing this, with company size being a factor, is one of the strongest signals we could possibly send to the wider world that we want no part of it in our supply chains.
Karen Bradley: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. She, too, was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—there is definitely great experience and knowledge of the issue in the Chamber today. Her work on the issue has been of great help to the Government. She is right that this is about the large businesses. When the Government discussed how best to secure this, it was the large businesses that were keen to see the level playing field, with everyone crossing the line together. She is absolutely right.
Mr Burrowes: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. This whole measure can be seen not as a burden for businesses, but as an empowering measure, because all responsible businesses will be able to see how they can root out and eradicate slavery. Is there a way in which we could move on in the timing of this measure and on enforcement by ensuring that everyone can see those businesses that are disclosing and complying, and by shaming those that are not? We could do that straight away on the website. Perhaps the anti-slavery commissioner could have their own portal to allow that to be communicated so that we could name and shame in an easy and accountable way.
Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is right to say that this process does not need to wait for the legislation to come in. Businesses can start to make these disclosures now; there is nothing to stop them doing that. The point of the Bill is to make sure that there is a level playing field and that all are crossing the line together. He makes some very interesting suggestions that I will reflect on.
Mr Frank Field: Will not successful disclosures involve some companies that, having found they are guilty of having slavery in the supply chain, rather than just sacking the suppliers, work with them on paying the workers proper wages? I would not want this measure to perpetuate poverty by pushing slavery further underground. If the public are to take a really rounded view on these reports, they should praise companies that find they are using slave labour and then go on to say what they are doing about it.
Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is about getting transparency in supply chains. On the very first day I started as a Minister, the first thing I was lobbied on was transparency in supply chains, and it became clear that this is all about finding out what is going on—shining a light. As he says, there may well be slavery within these supply chains, and if so action can be taken to deal with that.
I would add that in my experience of meeting Governments overseas where there may be concerns about human rights abuses, one of the strongest and most powerful tools to convince those Governments that they need to take action is that their businesses will not be able to trade with businesses here in Britain
4 Nov 2014 : Column 691
because we expect to be sure that there is no slavery in the supply chain, that human rights are not being abused through the supply chain, and that when consumers buy goods in Britain they can be confident that all action that possibly can have been taken has been taken to eradicate these practices from the supply chain. That is what transparency does—it shines that light and gives that clarity to the consumer.
New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay regulations to ensure that individuals who have benefited from modern slavery that has been perpetrated by a third party are criminally liable where their lack of supervision made the modern slavery offence possible. We do of course want business to take action to eliminate modern slavery from supply chains, and, as we have discussed, the Government are bringing forward a legislative measure to achieve this. However, I am not persuaded that a potentially very broad criminal liability in this area is the best approach. I want these provisions to drive a change in behaviour. That is why I firmly believe that the Government’s amendment to introduce a bespoke provision into the Bill is the right one. As I said, it goes much wider than the provisions in the California Act by including all sectors, not just retail and manufacturing, and the provision of services, as well as goods, but it does so in a way that does not create undue burdens for business.
I fully acknowledge the good intentions behind right hon. and hon. Members’ amendments. However, in the light of discussions and the work that the Government have undertaken in this area, and the effective provision that we are proposing today, I hope that they will feel able to withdraw them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): I rise to welcome the Government’s new clause 11 and to speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. It is very good news that the Government have finally moved on this matter in the final stages of the Bill. Not including supply chains was the single biggest omission from the draft Bill and the Bill introduced to this House, and it is good to see that this important concession has been secured from the Government.
I congratulate all those who have campaigned on this issue, including my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and, on the Government Benches, the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has tabled two new clauses that seek to extend the responsibilities of UK companies towards those who work in the supply chains, including compensation for victims and a ban on the importation of products produced using slavery.
Outside this House, a huge number of groups have also campaigned on the issue. I pay particular tribute to the Walk Free Foundation, the Ethical Trading Initiative, and the British Retail Consortium. I would like personally to thank all the groups and companies that I have met in order to inform Labour’s position, including Next, Primark, the Co-operative Group, Focus On Labour Exploitation, and Amnesty International.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 692
2.15 pm
Including supply chains in this Bill is the right thing to do. We cannot be serious about tackling slavery in the United Kingdom if we are prepared to accept products made using slave labour being sold on our high streets or commissioned by our companies. There has been an increasing awareness that slavery and forced labour are increasingly linked to the production of goods for major UK companies. We saw the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory where, sadly, 1,200 people lost their lives, many of whom were making clothes for UK stores. We saw the newspaper story by Felicity Lawrence—she won awards for it—about the prawn fishermen who were held in a lifetime of slavery reinforced by routine murder, having to watch individuals being tied to masts between boats and torn apart. We know that those prawns were being sold to Tesco, the Co-op and Aldi in the United Kingdom. We also know of small children who have been paid pennies a day to sew sequins on to children’s clothes.
The strength of feeling about dealing with such examples is very high. Eighty-four per cent. of the UK public want legislation on this, and so do the overwhelming majority of companies. For far too long, it was just the Government who were holding up progress. While most large retailers are implementing policies to tackle the issue, it is hard to see tangible progress, and hard for consumers to judge between companies. We want to introduce mandatory standards for reporting to force companies to adopt standard procedures. It is important to stress that we want to support British businesses that are acting to create the level playing field that the Minister mentioned. This is not just about forcing companies to act, but helping them to act.
One thing that has become clear to me in looking at this issue is how complicated the supply chains for UK companies are. It is hugely complex for UK companies to inspect their suppliers. Even the best practice in auditing is not foolproof. As the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, we saw at the weekend the story about Whistles and the Fawcett Society T-shirts. I very much hope that The Mail on Sunday, which took such an interest in this area, will be campaigning hard to make sure that it talks about getting supply chains into the Bill and supports it as a very important piece of legislation.
The Bill is about changing market conditions and creating market incentives for suppliers to show themselves to be fair. That would mean suppliers being able to show that they are meeting International Labour Organisation standards, backed up by kite-marking and an inspection regime. This is hard for UK companies to implement individually, but collective action could make it the norm. The Bribery Act 2010 has been hailed for reducing the burden on businesses by creating consistent standards and an industry to audit what is happening.
The Opposition’s proposal in new clause 5 builds on the recommendations of the Joint Committee and is modelled on section 85 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It does not bring in regulations directly; rather, it requires the Secretary of State to do so using an enabling power in the Companies Act 2006. While the regulations are in secondary legislation, the new clause lays out the framework for how they should work. I want to emphasise how our new clause addresses the three key issues in making a workable change to the Bill.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 693
The first issue is coverage. Our new clause 5 is explicit that this must cover large private companies and quoted companies. Of course, that may exclude some international firms working in the UK, but it is important to know that most will have UK subsidiaries that will be covered by the law.
The second issue is comparability. I am concerned that the Minister seemed to say that she did not think that this issue is particularly important. Consumers, non-governmental organisations and investors must be able to look at two reports and make direct comparisons between companies. Any large company could write a report laying out work in this area, but we need regulation to be specific enough to ensure that we can compare like with like.
Our new clause demands regulation under four headings, which were drafted in coalition with the Ethical Trading Initiative. The first is
“accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence”.
“investigation, monitoring and auditing of modern slavery and forced labour risks in the UK and throughout their global supply chains”.
“support and access to remedy for victims of forced labour and modern slavery”.
The fourth heading, which fits in with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has said, centres on
“training of staff and suppliers,”
giving them access to expertise and advice.
Finally, our new clause deals with the issue of enforcement by placing the regulations within the framework of the Companies Act 2006. That is absolutely key, because if we look at what has happened in California—the Minister referred to the Californian model—we will note that it has been very hard to see which companies have complied and how they have done so. Proper enforcement is not just about companies writing a report; it is about companies complying with the reporting requirements. As we have seen in California, without an enforcement procedure, companies are able to interpret the reporting requirements however they see fit.
Placing the reporting requirement in the Companies Act deals with that. There is already a range of personal and corporate enforcement procedures. Directors would have individual fiduciary duties to ensure the accuracy of the report and those involved in the compiling of the report, including accountants and lawyers, would also be under a professional duty to ensure the report is not misleading.
Moreover, this is a report that would be used by investors, not just consumers, so it could put pressure on companies from both sides. If firm x produces a report saying it has done a and b to eradicate slavery and then a newspaper shows that to be incorrect, investors would have the right to take action against the firm for the resulting fall in share prices. That seems to me to be one of the biggest incentives we could provide in pursuing this objective.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 694
We support the Government’s new clause 11, but the details of the three points I have just set out are to be left to secondary legislation.
Stephen Barclay: The hon. Lady is making powerful points about what teeth the guidance will have. Does she think that there are lessons to be drawn from when this House debated the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, when it was believed that the behaviour of the banks would be influenced by reputational damage, a belief that was found to be false in the light of their future conduct? There seems to be a reliance on the idea that guidance in itself will have a deterrent effect on major corporations, but that has to be backed up with some teeth.
Diana Johnson: I could not agree more. That is why it was important that I set out why new clause 5 deals in detail with the kind of issues that need to be clearly addressed in secondary legislation. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Just to recap: we support the Government’s new clause 11. Obviously, we want to wait and see what happens with the secondary legislation as it is introduced. It is surprising that the Government have gone against the Joint Committee’s recommendation and the evidence presented by several large companies arguing against stand-alone regulation, although the Government have now seen fit to pursue that. That poses particular problems for enforcement. I am sure the Minister has seen the briefing from the coalition of groups campaigning for change, which states:
“Monitoring of compliance with the provision needs to be taken seriously as this will be central to its success in driving change. We are concerned that the provision is currently weak on how monitoring and enforcement will be undertaken. The Government’s approach relies on a civil enforcement procedure by the Secretary of State, which means that in reality the measure would be unlikely to deter any businesses other than those who would in any case seek to comply on a voluntary basis.”
Sir Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I hope she will be able to wet her whistle while I speak. Does she agree that the monitoring process could make a start through the anti-slavery commissioner taking a more active role in observing and supervising company reports?
Diana Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Time is limited this afternoon, but I hope there will more discussion in the other place about extending the role of the independent anti-slavery commissioner to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
In the Minister’s closing remarks, I want assurances that whatever is proposed will apply to all large companies; that the regulations will be detailed enough to allow comparability; and that there will be a clear enforcement mechanism so that consumers, investors and NGOs can see who has complied and know that they can trust the report they have read.
Mr Burrowes:
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and, in particular, to support the principles in new clause 11. Some good points have also been made about new clause 5. As was evident on Second Reading, the House has coalesced around the principle of providing
4 Nov 2014 : Column 695
transparency of supply chains. It has taken a while to get there. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for the work she has done and the leadership she has shown in bringing together the Government in this way. That takes some doing.
The importance of the integrity of basic human rights in supply chains has not been recognised until now, unlike—shamefully, in some ways—the integrity of products in supply chains of hardwood, tobacco and pharma- ceuticals. Today represents a big and important step change in recognising the integrity of those human rights.
New clause 11 covers the principles of accountability and reporting, which are also addressed by new clause 5. We can deal with the qualms and queasiness surrounding burdens by saying that any responsible business will welcome new clause 11 as an empowering measure that can help them disclose any issues and root out slavery.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). When I said that we should name and shame, I did not mean that this is about good guys and bad guys. This is about disclosure. We should take a rounded approach. There needs to be full, transparent disclosure all the way along the chain so that everyone can shine a light to see what is happening and then deal with it appropriately. By shining that light all the way down and up, the most responsible businesses will expose some things that they are not happy about. They will then be able to say, robustly and confidently, “We’ve done that.” We should ensure disclosure by naming those who are disclosing in a proper and full way, and shaming those who are not disclosing, which is an issue of concern.
Once this measure is on the statute book, compliance and enforcement must be effective. From a light-touch point of view, I agree that transparency and accountability can happen through individual company websites, but we need to go further and enable all concerned to access information centrally. That is why I suggested in an intervention that the independent anti-slavery commissioner should have a portal. The responsibility for maintaining it would not be the commissioner’s alone, but people would be able to look at that independent website and see the names of those companies that have complied with the manner, spirit and intention of the statutory guidance. That is important and I think it would help. Given the timing involved with this measure and the need to get the office of the anti-slavery commissioner up and running, it is important that we make progress, possibly through the Home Office website, ahead of any parliamentary processes, including secondary legislation, and give people the opportunity to show that they are very much on the side of full disclosure.
I must say that I have one or two concerns. I am concerned about whether new clause 11 may be unduly complex, particularly in relation to enforcement via civil enforcement injunctions. Are such injunctions to expose the fact that a company is not up to speed on disclosure, or are they to get to the root problem of exposing its supply chain? The provision may be unduly bureaucratic and costly, and it may well not serve the purpose that everyone wants.
2.30 pm
To deal with that concern, we need to consider encompassing the approach covered by the Companies Act 2006. That has been suggested as an alternative, but
4 Nov 2014 : Column 696
we should consider how to embrace it. Last autumn, Parliament’s intention was that quoted companies must report on human rights issues, and it was plainly our intention that those issues must include supply chains. In its response to the Joint Committee, the Home Office stated that
“there is no specific requirement, rather an expectation, that companies report on supply chains…under the current rules.”
We need to ensure that the expectation is made a requirement, so that that indeed happens.
One alternative, as the Joint Committee said, is to add supply chains as a reporting requirement, so let us at least make it clear that Parliament’s intention is to ensure that when public companies report on human rights issues, they include supply chains. Why would that be very useful? The Companies Act route is a top-down approach from public companies and does not cover the offshore issue—the Government have certainly embraced a much more comprehensive reporting obligation—but it imposes duties on directors and such reports are audited. The approach therefore already has independence or teeth at an early point. We cannot simply have companies reporting on their website; it is important to have auditable reporting. Companies Act processes ensure that directors, accountants or lawyers make sure that reports are up to speed, and we need to find a practical way to embrace that advantage.
We want to ensure that the Bill leads the way internationally and is world-class, as the Home Secretary has said. The Companies Act approach gives it portability across different legal systems. New clause 11 is important, but it relates to our country’s legal system in the relief that it provides through injunctions. The Companies Act approach would allow other corporate governance ways to ensure that our lead is followed internationally. At the very least, we now have consensus, and I appreciate the direction in which the Government have gone.
Mr Frank Field: Could not other countries follow our lead by simply taking new clause 11 into their legislation?
Mr Burrowes: Other countries could do that, but they have different means of enforcement, which cannot be simply transferred. However, they could certainly take a lead by adopting much of what new clause 11 says.
Sir Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend has done valiant work on this topic. I agree with him that the enforcement angle needs more attention, but does he not agree with me that new clause 11 takes us a huge step forward? We should congratulate the Government on that, and now invite them to take the next step and get the enforcement right.
Mr Burrowes: I do not want to understate my praise—this is a huge step forward—but we, as legislators, want to ensure that what we approve is really fit for purpose and has the necessary teeth. There are other elements that can be done without legislation: the issue of international corporate governance goes beyond legislation, and it can best be dealt with by sharing good practice internationally.
I will finish on a very positive note. Today, we can say that British law is no longer just concerned about the sustainability of the wood in our furniture, but is more
4 Nov 2014 : Column 697
concerned about the freedom and safety of the millions of men, women and children involved in making that furniture.
Mr Frank Field: I, too, want to pursue the theme just followed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) in congratulating the Government, but drawing attention to just how important new clause 11 is. The Home Secretary made it very plain in her first article in The Sunday Times that she wanted a clause on supply chains in the Bill. I therefore congratulate her, her very able Minister and the person in No. 10 who changed his mind at this very late stage in the Bill’s passage. Heaven rejoices at the sinner who repents even at the eleventh hour, and some credit should go to the Prime Minister for changing his mind on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has played a valiant role in spearheading our approach to the Bill and has borne all the heat of the day on it. However, I think we all accept, whatever efforts we have put in, that the legislation is the easy part of the process. The next part will be very hard—to get a genuinely mass consumer movement of people who do not buy goods if they are not kitemarked as being free of slavery.
As we draw stumps on this House’s proceedings on the Bill, it is important to commend it, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has just done—it will not just be a good Bill, but a world leader when it leaves the other place—but the real work will be on enforcement and on convincing consumers that they have the vital job of not buying goods that are tainted by slavery.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): In following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I want to acknowledge the Minister’s efforts in making good the serious deficit in the Bill, but also those of the right hon. Gentleman and many other colleagues during the pre-legislative scrutiny, on Second Reading and ever since. Those efforts by him and the many others who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee have reflected the very strong concern of some of the groups that have worked so hard to support and promote the Bill and that understand the issue so well.
I am one of those who can take yes for an answer, now that the Government have made good on this matter. However, I would say, “Yes, up to a point, but maybe it could be improved.” I believe that the Bill could go further. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who tabled new clause 5, has shown that there are important issues. The headings given in subsection (3) are clear and useful, and it is right for them to be in primary legislation, rather than left to remote chance by way of secondary legislation.
New clause 5 is also important in what it would do with respect to the Companies Act. I understand what the Minister said about not only using that Act as the way to deal with the problem, but how it brings in very clear corporate responsibilities. In that context, it also highlights relevant professional obligations, which would give real meaning to what the Government and others are trying to encourage in relation to ethical investment, and in relation to the understandings we should all have
4 Nov 2014 : Column 698
about any investments—all the new pension provision and everything else—for which we are the source of the money.
The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has referred to financial services legislation. We have said that more and more needs to be done to ensure full and due transparency in that context. We should complement such provisions in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister—I support her new clause 11—can see her way to accepting new clause 5 as well.
I tabled two of the new clauses in this group of amendments. The Minister has addressed new clause 15, but let me point out that throughout the gestation of the Bill, we have been told that it is meant to be world leading. New clause 15 is an attempt to bring in the clear standards in EU directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings. If the Government are at pains to consolidate and codify much existing law in the Bill and to present it as world-leading legislation, the question arises whether we should not also use it to show that we are at least matching and adhering to international standards and obligations, including EU ones. My clause on the legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery would be consistent with the EU directive, and I see no reason why we should not explicitly ensure that our legislation is up to that standard.
New clause 14 seeks to go further on questions of the supply chain and sourcing, and the possible use of slavery or exploited labour. We are meant to be discussing world-leading legislation, but the new clause reflects legislation that was introduced 84 years ago in the United States of America. We hear a lot about Californian legislation on supply chains, but the Tariff Act 1930 in America gave power to prohibit the importation of
“goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country…by forced labour.”
The new clause is therefore hardly a radical view or innovation, and the Californian legislation—referred to often in debates on the Bill—exists in wider US legislation.
New clause 14 does not just rely on language in the 1930 legislation, which puts responsibility on the Secretary of State at the Treasury to prescribe the necessary regulations, but it also reflects the essence of the code of federal regulations in the United States, which establishes the process whereby anyone can petition the Department of Homeland Security. That explicitly provides for:
“Any person outside the Customs Service who has reason to believe that merchandise produced in the circumstances mentioned is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States.”
The United States legislation does not guarantee that the state will fully police all those issues, but it indicates that it will respond to legitimate petitions or legitimately presented evidence that gives rise to concern, and that it will act. Legislators in the US have ensured that the state reserves that power to act to prohibit the import of a good.
In the Government’s new clause 11, the onus is—understandably—on companies, which have to be able to show what they are doing regarding their supply chains. We wanted supply chains included in the Bill not as a badge for companies, but as a shield for workers in developing countries and other places—including the UK—who could be exploited. The difference is between
4 Nov 2014 : Column 699
this measure being a corporate badge or a shield for human beings. If companies have only to present what they say they are doing, and consumers then make their judgment and choice, why—if we are legislating for company responsibility but also for consumer responsibility and activism—is there still no rule for the state or Government?
“The Secretary of State shall have the power to prohibit the import at any point of entry to the United Kingdom of any good, ware, article, or product mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country that can be demonstrably shown to have been produced by slavery, forced labour, child labour or with the involvement of human trafficking.”
By rejecting that new clause we are saying that even if exploitation can be demonstrably shown, we do not want the state or any Secretary of State to be able to act against that. Whether in relation to the T-shirts that were in the newspapers recently, or anything else, we are saying that when such issues are raised, we do not want anybody or any part of the state to have responsibility for saying, “The nature of those products in terms of the quality of the supply chain is clear, but it is nobody’s job to move to do anything other that what companies are inspired to do, or what consumers are mobilised to do.”
2.45 pm
New clause 11(9) provides that:
“The duties imposed on commercial organisations are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings in the High Court for an injunction or, in Scotland”.
Will the Minister clarify what provisions will be made in Northern Ireland? Other amendments that we will discuss later thankfully include measures to improve the scope and smooth interface of the legislation vis-à-vis Northern Ireland, which I was at pains to address in Committee. I notice, however, that reference to Northern Ireland is missing from new clause 11, although the reference to Scotland is clear.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to stand up on Report and commend the Government for the progress we have made, but let us be clear that we are a little way along the journey. It is not as if the exploiters of women and children—whether for cheap labour, slave labour or sexual exploitation—are going to quake at the knees because we are passing this Bill, so let us be honest about that. As we try to close the loopholes, increase vigilance, and impose discipline on the trade that the exploiters are involved in, they will change the way they run that trade.
I spent time with the Serious Organised Crime Agency as part of the Government’s great police service parliamentary scheme. It showed us a model that it has drawn up of much of the trafficking that goes on throughout Europe and that it is trying to combat. It looked like a five-dimensional or 10-dimensional spaceship, and had been drawn up by the London School of Economics to show exactly how such organisations work. They are multinational and beyond any discipline; they have no morals and think only about the money at the end of the chain.
In reality, for many people at the “murky” end of the supply chain—that is how it was described by some of the witnesses from whom the Joint Committee took evidence—that is where the abuse takes place. To reach
4 Nov 2014 : Column 700
into that is very difficult as we get further and further from the first payment of money from a customer to a company, and the first payment from a company to its supplier, who supplies in a nice neat box with a nice label—it might be a nice T-shirt, for example, that costs £45 but is made by people who get paid 62p an hour and are locked in the factory and not allowed out in case, as the owner said, “They might come back hung-over and not able to work well the next day”. That is what we are dealing with.
We have made some strides, and many people were mentioned in the Joint Committee and the Bill Committee. Some, however, will not be mentioned—the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has unfortunately left her place, but she took an interest in this matter and went to see the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to talk about the need to include this measure on the supply chain, at a time when we were getting the resistance referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). People of good will saw that a Bill that did not refer to supply chains was not in the spirit of the efforts that have been made over the past 10 years by people such as Anthony Steen and the Human Trafficking Foundation, and the EU Parliamentarians against Human Trafficking, who were involved in trying to deal with an international, pan-European and pan-world trade.
When I saw new clause 11, which followed a generous promise by the Minister in the final Committee sitting to introduce a measure on supply chains, I was impressed. It is fairly thorough. There is a lot of bureaucratic writing that I would not necessarily have put into my Bill, not knowing how the mechanisms of the Government’s legislation works in all its depth, but part after part reflects the matters I referred to in my private Member’s Bill in 2012. I thank the Minister and all those who supported that measure for what has been done. We are on a journey and we have a long way to go, even if we pass the Bill and it is effective. We know that there are reservations. They will come up again in the other place to deal with the things that are not dealt with in the amendments and new clauses tabled here.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that some people will seek to avoid the provisions, but does he accept that that is the case with all forms of criminality, and that the Bill gives us a platform, for the first time, to tackle some of the worst cases of modern-day slavery?
Michael Connarty: I have absolutely no reservation in supporting that as a principle. We are doing the right thing. We have set together a number of pieces of legislation in the Bill that will deal with those who will wish to avoid its provisions, and I will mention some of the measures in new clause 11 that I think are effective and welcome.
I am glad that Government amendment 62 says there will be an affirmative resolution for regulations, because it is right that we will go into a Statutory Instrument Committee with them, and that we are given the chance to debate them with the Minister. I will mention some of the things I hope we will discuss when we get there.
New clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friends on the use of the Companies Act 2006, is something we should look at, because it is right. The hon. Member for
4 Nov 2014 : Column 701
Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made the point that we need as many tools as possible as well as the court of public and business displeasure when people do not act as we want. Therefore, we should look at how we can put some firmer things in the Bill, but I think that the big change in the Government’s thinking is to be welcomed, because they are using the principle of the California Act, which is much wider than the Companies Act.
By the way, I notice that the British Retail Consortium wants to include smaller companies. When I introduced my Bill, I used the figure of £100 million. In California, the figure was $100 million, and my amendment used £60 million, which is the equivalent. Clearly, quoted companies under the Companies Act are likely to be well outwith that in size. We want to respond to that and use the same reporting structures as the Act would use.
I tabled amendment (a) to new clause 11 because we should look at international standards. I have respect for the Secretary of State and the civil servants who advise her, but international organisations have looked at the issues again and again. In my Bill, I had a reference to the 1999 International Labour Organisation convention No. 182, which is about the definition of the worst form of child labour, because there can be difficulties with that in other countries.
I will tell a quick tale. When I was 10, I went out and found a job as a milk boy. I wanted to go out and become useful to my family. My brother had a job delivering rolls. I got 10 shillings—50p now—and about 1 shilling and sixpence in tips a week. I walked from the centre of town home and gave my mother 11 shillings and sixpence for the family budget. There were five of us and basically one labourer’s wage. It was not easy to survive. Was that child labour? I did not feel exploited. I loved it—I loved every bit of it. I am sure it is why I am so healthy now in my older age. I ran and ran, and perhaps built up the infrastructure for a long life. It was great and I loved it.
In other situations, people say, “If a woman takes a child with her when she is making bricks in India, at what age does that become a breach of child labour? When is that child able to contribute to a very low family budget and when do they want to do so?” The ILO has looked at those questions but we have not looked at them in great detail in the House. Hopefully, the ILO’s considerations will be used in the recommendations made under new clause 11(8), which is about giving guidance on the information that should be reported.
There is a bit missing from this Bill that was in my Bill: my clause 3 said that there should be some way of ensuring that the company that is found to use such labour provides assistance and protection for the victims of slavery. The guidance should continue that. It should say what a company should do as a benchmark. We should not just say, “We’ll not use that company any more,” but do something about it.
Mention was made of consumers. When I went around talking to people in supermarket networks—Mumdex is in many supermarkets in my area—they had a concern about slavery and the things that bothered their conscience, but they said, “If you’ve got four or five kids coming up
4 Nov 2014 : Column 702
to the summer, you buy the cheapest stuff you can get that is going to last the summer, because most of it’s going to be thrown in the bin by the end of the summer anyway. It is the company’s job to make sure I am not buying something that is contaminated by slave labour.” That is totally right. Perhaps some people who go up the high street and buy very highly priced goods ask themselves about that, but most people in my constituents’ environment will not.
I therefore welcome new clause 11(9). It is fantastic to see. If hon. Members read what is on the net about the Bill, they will see that people in Scotland think it has nothing to do with them. They think it is an English Bill. People should look at the new clauses to realise that it is a trans-border, transnational Bill. Subsection (9) states that people in Scotland can take an organisation to the Court of Session to enforce the fact that it is not carrying out the duty in the Bill. That will be very welcome.
I do not know whether the new clause covers Northern Ireland—I had that question in mind because it does not mention Northern Ireland. Do people there go to the Court of Session? Where do they go? Do people in Northern Ireland go to the High Court in England if they feel that a company in Northern Ireland is not doing something they should be doing? I am grateful to the Minister for including Scotland. That is an important measure.
We are making progress and I welcome the proposals. I hope the Government are listening when the Bill goes to the other place because they could add other things to it.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): I, too, was a milk boy, and a butcher’s boy and a paper boy, in my younger days. My hon. Friend has raised the subject of tips many times over the years. My wife and I booked a cruise two years ago through a British travel agent company. The cruise sailed from Southampton. When we spoke to the staff on the cruise, they said they did not receive any wages, and that they only got tips. If that is not modern slavery, I do not know what is. I was not fortunate enough to be on the Joint Committee. Does the Bill cover that?
Michael Connarty: I could not quote the legal detail, but I would think that if a company based in the UK did things like that, it could be taken to the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court in England and found not to be complying with the law.
As a Scot and as an economist, I read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”. It talks about comparative advantage, but before that, he wrote a document about the morals of competition. The good thing about the Bill is that it says, “We believe in competition.” We are not talking about pricing people out of the market entirely. We are saying that it must be morally justifiable as well as economically justifiable.
I want to finish with a response to one of my constituents, who, when it was reported that we were discussing the Bill, wrote in an e-mail blog: “What’s that got to do with creating employment in Scotland and your constituency?” The reality is that, if we can stop people using cheap labour, and particularly slave labour at the worst end, we give British companies the chance to compete better. That is why the BRC is behind the Bill. If there is a
4 Nov 2014 : Column 703
voluntary code, the bad companies just will not comply, whereas if there is a mandatory code and if we can take people to law to enforce it, everyone must do the right thing or be held to account.
Karen Bradley: I will not detain the House for long as we have other matters to come on to, but I want to make a few closing remarks.
This has been a very good debate and I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I think we can safely say that all those who have made contributions are great campaigners on this issue. They all deserve credit for getting us to this point, and they have changed the views of so many.
3 pm
The Government have taken their position from the evidence in the discussions and debates we have had with business and others on the best way to tackle this issue. The point was made that the Companies Act 2006 has already been amended to ensure that human rights are respected in companies’ annual reports. We considered whether that, and measures coming forward from the EU, would be enough. We consulted fully with business to ensure we did not take action rashly that would have been ineffective. Many people have campaigned on this issue for many years, but we wanted to ensure that the measures would be effective, appropriate and proportionate. Representations have been made to me, particularly by smaller businesses. It has been important for us to consult properly and fully. We have listened to businesses and taken the point that the way to achieve the transparency we all want is to introduce the Bill. We want businesses to start to act as soon possible. They do not need to wait for the Bill—they can start now.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) referred to the mass consumer movement and he is absolutely right that Fairtrade is a model. We consulted the Fairtrade Foundation on how it approached this matter and how it managed to make the public aware of fair trade to the extent that Biddulph and Leek in my constituency are Fairtrade towns. That happened because people wanted it to happen. The Bill seeks to enhance that and to add to it.
Points were made about tougher enforcement. We do not expect companies to ignore the new disclosure duty, but rightly the injunction procedure is there so that if a company does fail to disclose as required, the courts can force it to do so.
Stephen Barclay: I am sure the Minister is aware that one of the common tactics used by banks when subject to regulatory action is to get rid of middle management, settle with the regulator at the earliest opportunity and profit from the 30% discount as a way of mitigating the fact that they have been caught out by enforcement breaches without actually changing their culture. Is there not a risk of the same thing happening with these injunctions?
Karen Bradley: I hope that businesses will act in a way that deals with this problem. That is what businesses told us they want to do. They want to ensure there is no slavery in their supply chains, and consumers and others want to see that too. I hope that will be the case.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 704
Mark Durkan: On consumer action, what are the Government’s intentions with regard to public procurement, because the public purse will be a significant consumer? On sourcing and supplying, will there be a Government public procurement standard for companies?
Karen Bradley: I addressed that point briefly in my opening comments, but I will come on to it again in a moment. I will just finish the point about enforcement.
The courts can force companies to disclose, but that is different from the issue that some companies may make disclosures that consumers, shareholders and campaigners feel show that inadequate steps are being taken to eliminate slavery from supply chains. The courts can act if no disclosure is made, but there is action that civil society can take if it feels that companies are not making appropriate disclosures. The Government believe it is for civil society to put pressure on businesses that are not doing enough to eliminate modern slavery from their supply chains. The Government’s new clause makes this as easy as possible by ensuring that disclosures are easily accessible. The link to disclosure must be in a prominent place on a business’s website home page.
Before coming on to public sector procurement, I would like to address the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the extent of the new clause. I can confirm that the new clause on supply chains will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is made plain by later amendments to be taken later. I want to put it on the record that I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Executive and all the devolved Administrations for the excellent work we have done together to ensure that this provision can extend to the entire UK. He will know, from our discussions in Committee, that there were points on which we needed agreement—not just on this matter, but on many others as well. I am pleased that we have made so much progress. It was important throughout that this was not Westminster imposing on the devolved Administrations. Action has been taken because the devolved Administrations wanted to take that action.
On public sector procurement, all public sector suppliers are required to comply with applicable law, including relevant human rights and employment rights law. UK public procurement policy is that social, environmental or ethical issues can be taken into account in the procurement process where that is relevant, proportionate and non-discriminatory. We expect public sector procurement to be as transparent as other procurement, which is covered elsewhere. We will consult on this matter, and I encourage people who are concerned to respond to the consultation. It should be noted that whatever action is taken will be taken only following the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has its say. We will ensure that points are put forward.
Sir Andrew Stunell: The Minister speaks very well on Parliament giving affirmative support to these proposals. Does she envisage that being given before the first week of May next year? [Interruption.]
Karen Bradley:
The shadow Minister makes the point that perhaps that needs to be by the end of March, if the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether it will
4 Nov 2014 : Column 705
happen before the general election. I cannot answer that question at the moment. Perhaps I could write to him on the specifics.
I am delighted that new clause 11 will amend the Bill to include the measure on transparency in supply chains that so many have worked so tirelessly for, for so long. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division. I look forward to this measure being part of the world-class Bill we all wish to create.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Offence of child exploitation
‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a child.
(2) It shall be such an offence even if there was no threat or use of violence, other forms of coercion, deception or any abuse of a position of vulnerability.
(3) A child may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—
(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the child; or
(b) the child has attempted to escape from the situation.
(4) The consent or apparent consent of the child to the exploitation is irrelevant.
(5) “Child Exploitation” includes but is not limited to, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation; the exploitation of labour or services including begging or practices similar to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour; the exploitation of or for criminal activities including benefit fraud; the removal of organs; forced or servile marriage or enforced surrogacy; exploitation for unlawful adoption; and exploitation by enforced drugs smuggling, manufacture, production or distribution.”—(Diana Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Diana Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Offence of exploitation—
‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a person by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person.
(2) A person may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—
(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the person; or
(b) the person has attempted to escape from the situation.
(3) The consent or apparent consent of the person of the exploitation is irrelevant where any of the means set forth in section 9(1) has been used.’
New clause 24—Human trafficking—
‘(1) Any person who for the purpose of exploiting a person or persons—
(a) recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a person including by exchange or transfer of control over that or those persons;
4 Nov 2014 : Column 706
(b) by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person,
commits an offence of human trafficking.
(2) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsection 2(1)(a) or to the exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subsection 2(1)(b) have been used.’
New clause 20—Control of assets related to modern slavery offences—
‘(1) In section 40 (Restraint orders) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court shall presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.”
(2) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to—
(a) presume a freezing order will be granted within 24 hours in respect of assets where the court is satisfied that—
(i) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that some of those assets have been obtained as a result of an offence under this Act, and
(ii) those assets are over and above those reasonably required for living and business expenses.
(b) confer on the police power to issue a notice on financial advisers and institutions placing a duty of care on those institutions in respect of movement of assets that might hinder an investigation into an offence under this Act.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to provide that assets recovered in respect of an offence under this Act shall be paid to one or more of—
(b) the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and
(c) the victim or victims of the offence.
(4) The court will require an asset declaration from anyone subject to a restraint order within 24 hours in respect of any financial interests in assets held in whole or in part in the United Kingdom and in overseas territories. In the event of a false declaration, this will be treated as an aggregated factor in the setting of any future penalty.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless laid before in draft and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’
‘(1) An individual who is a victim of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4 may bring a civil action against the perpetrator in the County Court and may recover damages and reasonable legal costs.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “damages” shall include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labour or the value of the victim’s labour as guaranteed under the national minimum wage guarantees of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.”
This provision creates a civil remedy for victims of trafficking, to allow victims to pursue a civil claim for compensation directly from the trafficker in the absence of a criminal prosecution.
Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(c) the person exploits another person within the meaning of section 3(4), (5) or (6) of this Act and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being exploited.”
4 Nov 2014 : Column 707
Amendment 135, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) it is irrelevant whether a child consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and
(b) a child may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—
(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or
(ii) the child has attempted to escape from the condition.”
Amendment 136, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) it is irrelevant whether a person consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and
(b) a person may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—
(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or
(ii) the person has attempted to escape from the condition.”
Amendment 133, page 1, line 17, after “labour”, insert “or is being exploited”
Amendment 143, page 2, line 3, at end add—
‘(5) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsections 1(1)(a) or 1(1)(b) shall be irrelevant.”
Amendment 152, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 134, page 2, line 30, clause 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of section (1) a person is exploited only if one or more of subsections (4), (5) or (6) of this section apply in relation to the person.”
Amendment 151, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
00 “Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
In section 69, subsection (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, after “debt owned by the Crown”, insert—
“(e) in the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court must presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.””
Amendment 138, in clause 41, page 29, line 29, at end add—
‘(9) A child is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) he or she was under the age of 18 when the act which constitutes the offence was done; and
(b) the offence was integral to or consequent on the trafficking, slavery or exploitation of which he or she was a victim.”
This amendment aims to ensure a child victim of trafficking is not obliged to prove they were compelled to commit an offence before being able to access the protection of the statutory defence in line with international standards.
Diana Johnson: New clause 3 and new clause 4 seek to introduce specific offences for child and adult exploitation, and I would like to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
The Bill fails to cover cases of severe labour exploitation, and many recent high profile cases show we need specific laws to tackle it. New clause 3 would also help to stop workers being exploited and paid below the minimum wage, which is often a driving force behind local businesses being undercut by unscrupulous employers. The new clause would be a historic measure that would, for the first time, make the exploitation of workers, adults and children an offence. Importantly, it also addresses what has been described as “a lacuna” in the Bill, which fails to recognise the specific nature of exploitation of children in the UK and fails to address the issues that have led to
4 Nov 2014 : Column 708
so few successful prosecutions for child trafficking and slavery. This grouping incorporates a series of amendments from all parties with a common aim—to enable more prosecutions for trafficking, slavery or exploitation. This is exactly in line with what the Minister said repeatedly in Committee about getting more prosecutions.
At this stage, the Opposition are focusing specifically on the offences of exploitation, even though in Committee we tabled or supported many of the other amendments that have been tabled today. We support their aims and hope to return to them in the other place.
The Government claim that the Bill will enable more prosecutions. To do so, it transposes existing offences from three pieces of legislation into a single Bill. The Bill maintains the current offence of holding someone in slavery and merges two existing offences of human trafficking into a single offence of human trafficking. To secure a prosecution for human trafficking, it is necessary to show that X was trafficked and that this trafficking was done for the purposes of exploitation. It is important to stress that, because nothing in the Bill deals with the structures of these offences or the very high threshold needed to get convictions. In short, I do not think there is anything here that will enable more prosecutions.
Stephen Barclay: Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that, as far as I am aware, only one person has ever gone to jail for breach of a Gangmasters Licensing Authority offence? Does that speak to the high hurdles to which she alludes?
Diana Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We shall discuss the GLA later, but the hon. Gentleman’s point shows why we need to think again about the offences in the Bill and how we can make them stronger to ensure that we get more prosecutions.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that the offence of exploitation ought to be committed even when the threat of force is against someone other than the person being exploited—against a relative of the person who is being exploited, for example?
Diana Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which should perhaps be debated more fully in the other place. I absolutely agree that this is a strong point that needs to be considered.
Returning to the low number of prosecutions, in 2011-12 there were 15 prosecutions for slavery offences, but no convictions. Since the introduction of the offence, there has shockingly never been a prosecution where the victim was a child. In 2011, there were 150 prosecutions for trafficking offences, but only eight convictions. To put those figures in context, in 2013 the national referral mechanism received 1,746 separate referrals of cases of human trafficking, 432 of them involving minors. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,744 victims of human trafficking last year, 600 of whom were deemed to be children.
Sir John Randall: One problem—not necessarily about the offences per se—is getting the victims to bear witness and testify against those who trafficked them. Victims’ fear is one reason we are not getting successful convictions, and we need to do more for them.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 709
Diana Johnson: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to ensure that victims feel able to come forward and give evidence against those who have trafficked them, but I still think that we need to get the offences right and ensure that the offences are fit for purpose—an argument that I shall develop.
The new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is designed to address some of the structural problems with the drafting of the trafficking offence, and I want to put it on record that we fully support it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are designed to clarify the law on slavery to enable more prosecutions. I am sure that he will speak eloquently to those amendments. Again, we support what he is trying to achieve in principle.
3.15 pm
What we are trying to establish is the principle that there should be separate offences for exploitation. The Opposition’s view is that this is the most effective way of overcoming the substantial barriers currently in place in getting convictions. I take into account as well what the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said about victims and giving evidence.
To explain why our approach is needed, I want to turn to the evidence of Lord Judge, who was until recently the Lord Chief Justice and the most senior criminal judge in the country. He said of this Bill:
“We are making provisions for slavery, servitude and compulsory labour in clause 1 of the Bill. In Clause 2, trafficking is the offence. It becomes an offence because you do it with a view to exploitation. You could have an offence of trafficking, full stop, and a separate offence of exploitation. As it stands at the moment, you have a single offence with two parts—here is the trafficking and here it is with a view to exploitation. My own view is that trafficking in people is a dreadful thing to do, trafficking with a view to exploiting them is a more serious thing to do, but exploiting them is also serious. My concern reading Clause 2 and the various subclauses is ‘Is this really what we want?’—a single offence that has two ingredients, rather than two separate offences.”
Lord Judge is not the only senior lawyer to think this is needed, so let me turn to the evidence given to the Committee by Nadine Finch, a barrister specialising in children’s law. She said:
“In terms of child exploitation, in my view, as somebody who represents a lot of child victims, it is a real lacuna. Children are at a huge disadvantage in evidential terms. They very rarely understand they have been trafficked—what trafficking means—or what kind of evidence is needed. They particularly do not understand the movement part of being trafficked to the situation of exploitation; because they may well have been duped by their elders—by their parents. They may well have been too frightened, or not understood the movement. Therefore, children are more likely to be able to tell you about what happened to them when they were exploited than to be able to tell you about what happened to them when they were actually moved, or when travel was involved. That is a really important issue.”
“Many of my child clients can tell me about what happened when they were exploited in domestic servitude, in a restaurant or in prostitution; but they actually did not understand enough about the links between people who brought them across England, Europe or the world, and therefore they are not able to assist the police or prosecutors in terms of a trafficking offence. They can assist in the matter of exploitation, and I have got quite a few children who have been able to take the police to a house where they have been kept in domestic servitude or sexual exploitation, but they are not able to explain who brought them to that house, and therefore no prosecution happens.”
4 Nov 2014 : Column 710
So, two eminent lawyers, a whole coalition of children’s charities and the Joint Committee on the draft Bill all recommend specific adult and child exploitation offences.
I quoted Nadine Finch’s evidence at length because I think the House really should consider her experiences of these cases, and I think she encapsulates very well the problem with the current drafting. I also think we should consider this in the light of recent UK cases, particularly the sexual exploitation of girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere. We know that thousands of girls were exploited and abused, but little was done and few prosecutions were attempted. These girls were neither trafficked, nor held in slavery, but they were exploited, and putting specific offences in the Bill would move the legislative framework from one looking at individual sexual acts—who was present, was there consent and so forth—to one in which exerting control over a course of behaviour is more important. It is my view—and that of the charities and lawyers I work with—that this will enable more prosecutions, which we all want to see.
Given what we have learned recently about the scale of exploitation, and particularly in view of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), I believe that we now have to look again and ask the Government to reconsider their approach to these offences.
New clause 4 is specifically about adults. There is a higher threshold in establishing exploitation but the principle is the same: exploitation should be a separate offence. That is illustrated best with a few case studies. Craig Kinsella was held captive by the Rooke family in Sheffield and forced to work from 7.30 in the morning until midnight for no pay. He slept in a garage. He was starved and beaten with a spade, a crowbar and a pickaxe. He was not trafficked into the country; he was a British national. He had even voluntarily moved in with the family, but was then subjected to appalling abuse and exploitation. There was extensive evidence of this abuse, including from the Rookes’ own CCTV system. The Rookes were convicted, but not of slavery or of trafficking; rather they were convicted of false imprisonment and other lesser offences.
Gheorge Ionas, 35, exploited fellow Romanian migrants. He forced them to live in unheated buildings without sanitation, paid them as little as £100 a week for full-time work and made them scavenge for food from supermarket bins. Mr Ionas was fined just £500 for operating as a gangmaster without a licence.
Police in Kent described a similar situation where they came across 29 Lithuanian chicken catchers. Seventeen of these people gave written evidence and statements, which included beatings, theft of their wages, living with anything up to 12 people in a two-bedroom house, bedbug-ridden mattresses, dogs being set on workers, being held in the back of a Transit van for up to five to six days at a time without any ablutions—no washing or toilet facilities—being driven from job to job and not being paid for their full hours. The police thought this was criminal conduct but the CPS said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. No action was taken.
Following this case the evidence from Detective Inspector Roberts of Kent police to the draft Bill Committee was clear:
“Certainly within Kent, we have had quite considerable difficulty in working out what is criminal exploitation, particularly labour exploitation, where people are working very, very long hours in
4 Nov 2014 : Column 711
difficult circumstances. If you asked an average member of the British public whether that person was being exploited, they are, but because of their circumstances they are allowing themselves to be exploited and to remain within circumstances of exploitation.”
With the number of these cases growing, the evidence is now overwhelming that we need specific legislation to stop these people being exploited and to stop British workers being undercut.
In conclusion, the aim of the amendments is to prosecute those who traffick and exploit, but we must also recognise the amendment in this group that seeks to prevent those who have been trafficked from being prosecuted. That is an equally worthy cause and is particularly important in relation to children. It is quite frankly a disgrace that more trafficked children are being prosecuted than their traffickers. Labour welcomed the inclusion in the Bill of a statutory defence, though as was made clear both in evidence to the Committee and in discussion, this amendment does not do enough to protect children.
Therefore, we support the principle of amendment 138 tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which seeks to clarify that children can be trafficked without being compelled—something that is recognised in clause 2, but not in clause 41. Labour supported amendments to this end in Committee and does so again here. The drafting of amendment 138 is slightly broader than we think is appropriate, and we do not want to exempt children necessarily from either the reasonable person test or schedule 3. But the principle that children should be able to rely on the defence without proving compulsion is one we support and will seek to address in the other place.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): The Modern Slavery Bill recognises our obligations under article 4 of the European convention on human rights and the 2005 European convention on action against trafficking of human beings, both of which will have informed section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which made it an offence to hold a person in slavery or servitude or to require them to perform forced or compulsory labour.
This Bill will replace section 71 of the 2009 Act but I believe there is a further and somewhat different menace that needs our attention. New clause 4 comes close to identifying it, which is why I have put my name to it. I am not sure that I can follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) into the Lobby if she does force a Division on the new clause, and I suppose I am being somewhat disingenuous as I am using the new clause as a peg to talk about this further and different menace.
I want to urge upon the Government a few thoughts of my own on the subject of exploitation of vulnerable people. We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment or disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who take old and frail people's money through fraud and deception, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted upon them by others of malevolent intent but whose exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.
I have in mind some young adult women whose experiences have been brought to my attention by their parents and families, some of whom have contacted other right hon. and hon. Members. In essence they
4 Nov 2014 : Column 712
have been brainwashed—I use the term unscientifically—or suborned by quack counsellors who have persuaded them to break off all contact with their parents and siblings and to pay them fees for the so-called counselling. Some of these young women are well-off and, I assume, suggestible but all of them for no apparent reason have broken off all contact with their families.
France and Belgium now have laws to criminalise the behaviour of these predatory charlatans—these quacks—who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. It must be assumed that these laws do not conflict with those articles of the ECHR that protect the rights to private and family life, to freedom of expression and to association or religion.
France has made it an offence to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness, infirmity to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender, or to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act or abstain from acting in any way seriously harmful to him. That is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to €375,000. Where the offence is committed by the legal or de facto manager of a group that carries out activities, the aim or effect of which is to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical dependency of those who participate in them, the penalty is increased to five years’ imprisonment and to a fine of €750,000. I hope the House will forgive my somewhat inadequate translation of the French into English. But that is what the law says in France.
I accept that to create a new law as outlined by new clause 4 will not be easy but that is not a good reason not to try if the idea is a sound one. I can see that this short debate is not the best place to do this, but may I set out one way of considering whether any proposed offence will work by looking at the following questions? Is it prosecutable in theory and in practice? Can each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real life example? Does the measure deal with the mischief that is identified, and will it catch no one else? How will it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? Will it allow the mentally capable who decide to give their fortunes away and leave their families to do so? Will it make sufficiently clear what is criminal behaviour and what is not? Will it comply with the European convention on human rights? What effect will it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? That is unquestionably where we shall encounter the greatest controversy, because I suspect that it will not be enough to say that the measure does not outlaw any particular doctrine. If it is used to curtail a religious practice, freedom of religion will clearly be affected.
I have attempted to break the potential offence into a number of component parts or elements so that we can—or, I hope, the Home Office can—better construct the offence that is proposed in the new clause. I wish to criminalise behaviour that is characterised by four factors. The first is persistent or repeated pressure on a person. We shall need to be more specific about what constitutes pressure, and about the techniques employed. We shall
4 Nov 2014 : Column 713
also need to consider such questions as whether someone has a pre-existing weakness that can be exploited, or is of ordinary firmness but then becomes enfeebled or vulnerable by virtue of the exploitative pressure. The French law which I mentioned earlier specifies two offences: fraudulently taking advantage of someone who is already weak, and pressurising someone who thereby becomes weak.
3.30 pm
The second factor that we should consider is the intention of a person that causes another person to act to his or her own detriment. Should it be financial detriment, emotional detriment, social or family detriment, or any other kind of detriment?
Thirdly, we need to consider whether the activity concerned must take place in the context of a group that engages in behaviour of this kind. Under French law, if the leader or manager of a group is found guilty, that constitutes an aggravating factor, and the penalties are increased. In France, the law is aimed unashamedly at cults and sects. Perhaps, if the Minister is prepared to think about this form of exploitation, she should think about that as well. We also need to think more widely about, for instance, exploitative jihadist groups that suborn and seduce young people into going around the world to cause trouble for others and, indeed, for themselves.
I anticipate a difficulty. Once we move into the group element, we touch on the borders of religion. However, I think that we need to be brave, and to remind ourselves that there is a world of difference between a religion and an eccentric sect. If we do not include the group element, and allow one-to-one pressure alone to trigger the offence, we shall become involved in arguments about unequal domestic relationships, high-pressure selling or evangelists, and may fail to catch the charlatan counsellors whose activities have been brought to my attention.
Fourthly, we need to think about whether the offence will be complete only if the result of the pressure is that the person’s will is indeed suborned, and the person does indeed do something to his or her detriment.
For reasons of time alone, I have compressed my thoughts, and I have unashamedly borrowed the new clause for the purposes of this short debate. I hope that, once the Home Office has had a chance to digest what I have said in a rather garbled way this afternoon, it will think about it carefully. I think that the issue is of much wider interest than may now be apparent to the Minister. We have already discussed it informally, but I hope that she and her officials, and others in the Government—from the Home Secretary upwards and downwards—will give considerable further thought to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): Order. I remind Members that, as a result of the timetable set by the Government, the debate on this group of amendments and new clauses must end at 4 pm, and I must allow time for the Minister to respond. I should be grateful if Members would bear that in mind when making their speeches.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 714
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): I will indeed bear that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will speak briefly, although I think that the issues that I wish to raise are fairly substantial. While I agree with all who have congratulated the Members on both sides of the House who have brought us to this point, I think that there is still a lack of action on key issues, and that the Bill, as it stands, falls a long way short of providing justice for victims of slavery.
There are three core gaps in the Bill. First, we need to get the definitions right, which is the aim of my new clause 24. If we do not do that, we shall risk leaving open legal loopholes that will allow traffickers to thrive. Secondly, the Bill must deliver for victims, which is the aim of new clause 21. Thirdly, there are issues in relation to prevention, which I hope to address later in the debate around new clause 1.
The definition of human trafficking was established in an internationally binding treaty and was integrated into the national laws of some 134 countries. That definition brings with it significant victim protection and a comprehensive framework for addressing trafficking, which is why I propose that we return to that in new clause 24. Unlike the international definition of trafficking, the trafficking provision in this Bill does not criminalise the “harbouring” or the “reception” or the
“exchange or transfer of control”
of victims or even the “recruitment” of victims where those acts do not involve the arrangement or facilitation of travel. We should recognise that there is a real problem in cases involving large criminal networks where different people take different roles in the trafficking process. There is also a problem where victims arrange their own travel into and around the UK and to the site of exploitation, as often occurs when individuals are deceived about work conditions or conditions deteriorate over time. The Bill’s definition, which is narrowly focused on the movement of victims, adds nothing but confusion and will let traffickers off the hook for the crimes they commit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out.
Let me turn briefly to the purpose of new clause 21. In its current form, it is hard to see what this Bill would provide for the 40 Hungarian men found last year living in squalid conditions and forced to work for less than £2 a day in a mattress factory in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire. The men were barely surviving on limited food. They were crammed into a two-bedroom flat and threatened with violence if they resisted. They were exploited by gangmasters who supplied their forced labour to a factory run by the bed manufacturer KozeeSleep, which provides its products to some of our major national retailers.
Those victims of human trafficking have a right to compensation for the appalling wrongs that have been inflicted upon them. Clauses 8 and 9 include provisions for reparation orders to be made in cases where the perpetrator is convicted and a confiscation order is made, but from 2011 to 2013 only 252 trafficking and forced labour cases were prosecuted, and just 78 of them—less than a third—resulted in convictions. Not only are conviction rates low, but compensation orders are rare. The Government do not keep statistics on this, but we know from victim support providers that they are few and far between. I have tabled new clause 21 to allow victims themselves to bring civil claims in the
4 Nov 2014 : Column 715
county court, to seek compensation directly from the trafficker—not from the public purse—in the many cases where a criminal prosecution has not been possible. A similar provision is currently in use in the US Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 2003, and is frequently used successfully to secure compensation for trafficking victims.
These steps are essential to get a Bill that makes a difference to the lives of victims. We must get the very foundations of this Bill right by aligning our definitions with international law and, where people are exploited, making absolutely sure that they are compensated for the abuse suffered. I recognise that we may not get that through agreement on these amendments today, but I hope that these issues will be addressed when the Bill is debated in another place. These measures, together with real action on prevention, can make the difference between a Bill that will deliver headlines and a Bill that will deliver justice.
Stephen Barclay: The official figures for this year showed that more people were trafficked for labour exploitation than for sexual exploitation. The crux of that is money, and new clause 20, which is supported by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), seeks to identify how we can make it easier to recover money from criminals and strike at the heart of what is driving this trafficking trade.
There are two reasons why at present we recover so little from this organised crime. According to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, we currently recover just 23p in every £100 that is identified as criminal assets. That has two results. First, increased pressure is placed on law enforcement agencies when, at a time of austerity and many other demands, investment in forensic investigators is often not a priority. The second reason relates to the high hurdles relating to evidence, which create a disincentive for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply for restraint orders. If there is insufficient evidence, the CPS can incur costs through losing an application. The resulting delay in freezing assets often means that they can be difficult to trace and expensive to identify. The Joint Committee has looked at this matter.
The new clause seeks to make it easier to freeze assets within the first 24 or 48 hours. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has spoken in the House previously on the merits of that, and of learning from the example in Italy. Amendment 151 seeks to achieve that in relation to the presumption about criminal assets being dissipated post-arrest. We need to give the police a clearer incentive to invest in forensic investigators. If I were a chief constable, why would I make such an investment this year if I knew that it would take several years to recover the money, and that if the money were recovered, the Home Office would take 50% of it? We need to change that. We need to overcome the objections of the Home Office and the Treasury so that those who carry out the investigations are those who benefit from the assets that are secured, once the victims have been compensated.
We also need to place a higher duty on financial advisers. At the moment—I say this having worked for such an institution—it is very easy to hide behind a
4 Nov 2014 : Column 716
suspicious activity report. In essence, that report is a defensive mechanism, and more than 350,000 are filed with the Serious Organised Crime Agency each year. At the point of an arrest following an investigation by financial investigators, a higher duty should be placed on financial institutions, should they then choose to move the assets in question. We should freeze any assets over and above those that are required for reasonable living and business costs, so that money can less easily be moved offshore. We should also require an asset declaration that could be used to demonstrate an aggravating factor, should assets that had not been declared be discovered following further investigation.
There is a suggestion from the Home Office that some of these issues will be addressed in the Serious Crime Bill, but it is clear that it will not address many of the matters that have been raised in the Joint Committee and by Members here today, so I hope that the Minister will look again at the extent to which the measures in this Bill that relate to the financial proceeds of crime can be strengthened so that we can tackle the root cause of the problem—namely, the funds.
3.45 pm
Mr Frank Field: I also wish to speak on that theme, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know you will be pleased to hear that we will not press the matter to a vote, but we hope that the Minister will pick up the idea and translate it into effect in the other place. The change involved would be quite simple. The whole House agrees that we want to get more money back from these evil people. At the moment, we can start the process of freezing assets on the day the investigation begins. However, we have to prove that the person with the assets is likely to dissipate them around the world. The proposed change would mean that any agency attempting to freeze assets under the provisions of this Bill—which I hope will soon become an Act—would not be required to meet any threshold of proof that the person would otherwise dissipate them. That would make a huge difference to the number of people we hope will be prosecuted, as they could then have their assets frozen. There would then be a ready source of moneys with which the Government could make good on their wish to compensate the victims of slavery. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) —as I call him on many of these occasions—has pointed out, those moneys could be used to help to pay for the policing involved, which would make the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 more effective.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): Before I call Mr David Burrowes, I must ask him to bear it in mind that we have one more speaker on this group of amendments. If he and Mr Durkan could each speak for about four minutes, that would give the Minister time to reply before 4 o’clock.
Mr Burrowes:
I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the
4 Nov 2014 : Column 717
Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.
I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.
The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.
Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD): We have no time, but I just want to put on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Burrowes: I thank the hon. Lady very much. I am sure we can find a way of putting in the Bill our understanding that consent is irrelevant here, particularly in relation to children. As for what is in case law, let us get a form of words in the Bill that ensures that we increase the prosecutions for slavery, particularly in relation to children.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 718
Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to my amendment 138, which is mainly what I wish to address. However, I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said about the amendments standing in his name and the wider issue of consent, which is also touched upon in amendment 143.
Amendment 138 aims to make good a clear deficit in the Government’s provision in the Bill for a statutory defence. That defence is inadequate and certainly is not fit to deal with the position of children. The amendment seeks to change that so that child victims of trafficking would be fully protected. Clearly, children have already suffered if they are detained in the process, and if they find themselves subject to a prosecution or even the speculation about a prosecution. That becomes traumatic for children who have come through trafficking, slavery or exploitation, as it would for any victim. So it would be wrong to have a requirement that children have to show that there was compulsion—that should not exist in law. The presence of any other means including compulsion should be irrelevant when defining a child as a victim of trafficking or exploitation. Children in such a situation will be frightened, confused and traumatised. They should not face further isolation and distress and all the other psychological pressures as they go through what will be to them a fairly unknown process.
Despite the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, children are still prosecuted. It should be an imperative for us in this legislation to stop that occurring in the future, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to do that.
I point out to the Minister that in July the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the Government, in relation to trafficked children and to all children covered by the optional protocol on the sale of children, to establish
“a clear obligation of non-prosecution in the criminal justice system and ensuring that [children] are treated as victims rather than criminals by law enforcement and judicial authorities.”
Basically, that is what amendment 138 tries to do; it tries to bring the Bill up to that standard. However, I recognise that there is the wrinkle in relation to schedule 3, and for that reason amendment 138 addresses a very important issue that needs to be considered further. I will not be pressing the matter to a Division, because, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, there is an outstanding issue in connection with it.
Karen Bradley: I am grateful to all Members for tabling and speaking to a number of amendments that relate to the offences set out in clauses 1 and 2, the ability to seize the assets of those convicted of offences and the defence for victims who are compelled to commit an offence, as outlined in clause 41.
We had a thorough, detailed and lively debate on the offences and their practical application in Committee. I am extremely grateful to all Members of this House and others who have contributed to the debates on the offences and have made their thoughts known to the Government to enable us to continue our thinking.
I made it clear in Committee that the Government’s approach is to consolidate and simplify existing offences into a single Act, which will make it easier for law enforcers to understand. We want to see clear offences
4 Nov 2014 : Column 719
that can be used effectively by prosecutors and others to convict serious criminals who will now face a potential life sentence.
The offences in the Bill deliberately tackle serious criminal conduct that can be said to amount to modern slavery. Given the time available and the amount of discussion that we have had, I want to put it on the record at this stage that the Government continue to listen to all points that are made on this matter. We want to ensure that we reflect the concerns that have been raised and that we have clear and simple offences that achieve the convictions that we all want. Members should remember that we are looking here at international conventions and protocols that are written in civil law, which is a different type of law. Putting them straight into UK common law sometimes creates unintended consequences, and I am keen to ensure that we do not do that.
Clause 1 targets those who hold a person in slavery or servitude or who require another person to perform forced or compulsory labour in this country, without any requirements for movement. The clause 2 offence targets a different type of wrongdoing, which is the movement of human beings with a view to exploiting them. That different type of wrongdoing has been the subject of international legal instruments such as the Palermo protocol and the EU directive. That is fully justified because we know that there is an international and national trade in human beings. It is right that we have a separate offence targeting those involved in the movement of people to be exploited, and that is what this offence achieves.
These measures are part of a wider strategy to improve the law enforcement response to modern slavery, and to increase the number of successful prosecutions. Let me highlight that there is no magic bullet by which we can transform the situation simply by amending the technical definition of the offences. The Committee heard from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the offences set out in this Bill are clear and welcome. However, the issue is often not the definition of the offence, but getting the evidence required for a conviction, which is a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall).
I want to touch on the Kinsella case, which the shadow Minister raised. We discussed a number of cases in Committee. It is important to put it on the record that the offenders in that case were convicted of false imprisonment, and that offence carries a maximum of a life sentence, whereas under the current law, slavery carries a maximum of only 14 years. It is completely understandable that those offenders faced the criminal charge conveying the highest possible penalty, but this Bill will ensure that slavery and trafficking offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and I want to see those offences used in prosecutions in the future. So the solution to obtaining more prosecutions is better work by law enforcement, better support for victims and witnesses, and clear offences with the more severe penalties set out by this Bill.
New clauses 3 and 4 and the amendments seek in different ways to widen the scope of the offences to create a new criminal offence of exploitation, which will carry a life sentence. I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members have tabled such amendments. I share
4 Nov 2014 : Column 720
the concern to ensure that this Bill criminalises modern slavery effectively. The wider criminal law needs to tackle exploitation that should properly be criminal but might fall short of the conduct required for the serious offences in this Bill.
I know that we debated this issue at length in Committee and I continue to look seriously at where there may be any gaps in the legislation. I have been absolutely clear throughout that our approach to offences is to take seriously how they will work in practice. For example, we have taken advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director gave evidence in Committee that
“We much prefer the clarity of the offences in the Bill as drafted by the Government.”––Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 4, Q2.]
rather than the more complicated and confusing alternative presented by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which included exploitation and child exploitation offences.
Introducing exploitation offences would risk causing confusion. “Exploitation” is potentially a very broad term, and there is a real risk that we would capture much wider behaviour than was ever intended in this Bill, which focuses rightly on the very serious crimes of slavery and human trafficking. The risk is that, by making the offences too broad, the public will no longer be clear on the conduct that we are targeting through very serious criminal offences that carry a life sentence as a maximum. And the effect of the Bill on law enforcement will be diluted, as the conduct we are targeting will be less clear and so will law enforcement’s focus on the victims of serious crime. It is only right and proper that, where we are dealing with less serious conduct, we prosecute those responsible using less serious offences.
A second issue raised by new clauses 3 and 4 is whether separate child offences are needed in this Bill. In some circumstances, child offences are helpful to enable a tougher sentence to be given to criminals who target and abuse children. This Bill introduces a maximum of a life sentence for the main offences in relation to slavery and human trafficking and current sentencing guidelines already highlight offences against children as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. There is no practical benefit in establishing a separate child-specific offence when offenders already face the maximum penalty possible—life. That is why there is no need for a separate child murder offence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions gave clear evidence to the Committee that
“If you separated out offences into adults and children, it would make it more complicated because we know from the number of cases we prosecute that defining and identifying someone’s age is often extremely difficult…There is absolutely no need for it to be separated out; that would make it more complicated and more difficult to prosecute some of these offences.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 6, Q11.]
So I do not believe that a separate child offence would help to deliver the objectives of the House.