On Friday, 28 March, Bishop Viv spoke in the House of Lords during the debate on the report from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee - The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again.
My Lords, I, too, speak as a member of the review committee on the Modern Slavery Act in this 10th anniversary week. It was world-leading legislation, as we have heard. I also rise in the week that the Church commemorates Harriet Monsell, founder of the Anglican Community of St John Baptist, Clewer, a community which, from its 19th century inception, had as a core vocation the care of female victims of human trafficking. That community has for several years funded training of community groups across the United Kingdom to notice the trafficked
people—women, men and children—hiding in plain sight in their midst and to act on their behalf. Clewer has also produced apps, notably for car washes and nail bars, giving assurance on their labour practices and suppliers. In today’s debate, that is where I would like to focus my remarks.
I draw attention to Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, which imposes a duty on companies supplying goods or services that have a turnover of at least £36 million to “prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement” every financial year. The statement should set out the steps that the business is taking to address and prevent the rise of modern slavery in its operations and supply chains. I know that some take that commitment very seriously.
I was happy to meet with one such company recently, Primark, which undertakes thorough and regular independent audits of its factories, employing experts who speak the local language and, in turn, talk to the local workforce so that they know what is going on on the ground. Once they find that the situation has materially changed, they pull out of the market. For example, in 2019, Primark found that it could no longer conduct effective human rights due diligence in Xinjiang province in China, so it prohibited all suppliers from using and sourcing products, materials, components or labour originating from the region. Primark has taken equally decisive action when UK suppliers have been found to be non-compliant.
Our report included recommendations on strengthening statutory guidance in Section 54 and the introduction of sanctions for non-compliance, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, indicated. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on progress in this area.
The issue of modern slavery and exploitation in supply chains raises questions about corporate accountability. Although consumer businesses are exposed to a greater level of transparency and accountability, their lesser-known competitors can get away with publishing weak statements or not publishing at all, in the knowledge that any penalties are unlikely to be forthcoming. I know that many businesses, including the British Retail Consortium, John Lewis, Tesco and others, are asking for further regulation so that companies that operate supply chains free from forced labour are not left at a financial disadvantage.
A change in the law would chime with the public, as polling shows that four in five people want a new law to prevent exploitative practices. The law must in future hold UK companies accountable by establishing a central registry of statements similar to the gender pay gap register, and enforce the Modern Slavery Act by imposing financial penalties where companies fail to publish a statement and provide swift access to justice for victims.
Public sector organisations are also vulnerable to modern slavery risks in their supply chains and they lack the resources and legal power to address potential labour exploitation threats. Currently, public sector organisations, as we know, are driven by the need to drive down costs and find savings wherever they can, but it is vital that individuals are not endangered through their association with such risks. The Government’s
modern slavery assessment tool indicates that 21% of suppliers were identified as high-risk, and that surgical instruments, gloves, gowns, uniforms and masks—PPE—were identified as the five highest-risk products. A possible reform to procurement processes could be the introduction of clauses into public tender legislation, mandating explicit disclosures about modern slavery risks. These clauses would require suppliers to demonstrate due diligence and reaffirm their commitment to preventing modern slavery.
The Modern Slavery Act was truly ground-breaking when it was introduced, but it must keep pace with changes to business practices by recognising the increasing complexities of supply chains. There are exemplary practices, as I have indicated, but these need regulatory support and a corporate environment where best practice is actively encouraged. Incentivising businesses would create a competitive and regulatory environment where companies would race to the top rather than to the bottom. The law as it stands discourages businesses from doing anything but the bare minimum and leaves the UK’s record on human trafficking, once so powerfully pioneering, now profoundly blemished.