Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 97A and 98A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. First, as other noble Lords have said, we must give credit where credit is due. The Government have engaged with the issue of transparency in supply chains and have come a long way on this issue since the Bill was first published. Part 6, on transparency in supply chains, was a welcome addition, as is government Amendment 97. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his positive engagement with this issue.

Having minimum criteria in the Bill will not only help business, it will help consumers and civil society. It will also help the Government as, with minimum criteria, there will be clarity about what businesses have to provide, thereby creating the level playing field that good businesses need and deserve. Comparisons between companies will be easier to make, helping consumers and civil society to make choices and to apply the pressure needed to make real change happen—to be catalysts for change. Having minimum criteria in the Bill will help give the Government the transparency and the world-leading legislation that they say they want to achieve, but the word “may” in line 2 of Amendment 97 has to become “must”. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, sets out in his Amendment 97A, without this change, the amendment setting out the minimum criteria that we all now agree needs to be in the Bill is made less effective. The element of uncertainty remains and the level playing field is gone.

I understand the argument that these are minimums, that we should give flexibility to allow more information to be given, not less, and that we want businesses to be able to report appropriately for their business and circumstances, but the lesson from the application of the Californian legislation is clear. While hundreds of organisations issued statements in line with the Act in California, some did not. Some businesses disclosed meaningless information, some disclosed misleading information and, worst of all, some disclosed that they do nothing, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said. Some have even ignored the legislation and been completely silent. We do not want that to happen.

Part 6 is not a paper exercise for businesses; it is a serious measure that good businesses will want to engage positively with and on an equal footing with each other. It is not fair that the good businesses that are doing excellent work are being undercut and undermined by the bad. Clauses that allow uncaring businesses to write down in less than 200 words, “We don’t do any of this work, and we don’t intend to start”, like the submission—and I will name the company—from the multinational Krispy Kreme doughnuts in California, have to be tightened. That is why I support Amendment 97A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and why I have added my name to Amendment 98A.

As monitoring and enforcement of this part of the Bill is crucial, it is not adequate enough to leave monitoring and enforcement to be fulfilled by consumers and civil society alone. It is the job of government to ensure compliance with its legislation. Therefore, I support the proposition put forward in both Amendment 98A and Amendment 98, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I was convinced by her argument in Committee that the part of government that should monitor and be responsible for this part of the Bill is the commissioner.

Amendment 98A introduces a requirement for a central government portal where all the annual statements are aggregated online, maintained and overseen by the new commissioner, a role that I understand the commissioner is supportive of. But even if this current commissioner is not supportive of it, we are clearly making legislation for the future, and it should be a role of such a commissioner. Leadership on this issue has to come from government, so the legislation needs to allow for the monitoring, enforcement and review. A government portal will also allow consumers and civil society more easily to fulfil their role of community enforcers. Having one central place that we can all go to to compare businesses, research best practice and analyse reports is simple and practical and an important initiative in our shared fight against slavery and forced labour in supply chains.

Finally, I refer to the last part of Amendment 98A, which will mean the issue of slavery and forced labour will be put on the desk of multinational CEOs around the UK and the world. Many noble Lords in this House have emphasised the need for supply chain transparency to be a corporate responsibility, as it is in the boardrooms of multinationals where real change can be made to happen. Multinational corporations have the power to insist on decent wages and formal contracts for all their workers here and across the world. They have the power to insist on inspection regimes and the power to improve the working conditions of those enslaved by exploitative suppliers. Amendment 98A helps them realise more acutely that they have this power and also encourages them to use it. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will, too.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, again, I welcome the changes that the Government have made on this issue. Changes is the wrong word because we started with nothing, and with the introduction of the new clause the Government have built on that, which is very welcome. I agree very much with what has been said about public procurement; for us to say, “Do as we say”, when we should be saying, “Do as we do”, is probably all that I have to say on that issue.

I agree, too, about the appropriateness of co-ordination involving in some way the commissioner. I have added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Baroness on that matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the issue of enforcement, without which one has nothing. I was struck by the following from a report undertaken by four students at King’s College London, comparing this Bill with the Californian Act and a US federal Bill not yet in effect. The American legislation is far more precise and detailed as to what is required from the organisations that are covered. The students said that,

“the ‘incentivising’ enforcement methods are questionable as to impact and efficiency. Parliament makes companies follow many other rules—why is this one particularly troublesome?”.

Because I would like to thank them properly, I shall repeat their names—but I reassure Hansard that I shall send the spellings. They are Olivia Rosenstrom, Elizabeth Komives, Tim Segessemann and Helin Laufer. They also commented that,

“a clear structure among all companies makes review and comparison a lot easier for both experts and the public”.

Again, that is very insightful. Those young people go straight to the heart of the matter—rather better than I, many times their age, can do.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, add support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. This is a very important issue, affecting a group of extremely vulnerable workers, so it is right and fundamental that it forms part of the Bill. The change to the overseas domestic workers visa back in 2012, tying domestic workers to their employer, was too heavy-handed a response when you look at the number of domestic workers involved and the vulnerability of those workers. In 2010, visas issued to domestic workers accounted for just 6% of all employment-related visas issued. At the time of the change, the Government argued that this visa was a route to settlement that was abused. However, very few overseas domestic workers were granted the right to settle; between 2006 and 2010, an average of just 700 domestic workers a year were given the right to settlement. That figure taken as a percentage of the 2013 settlement figures represents less than 0.5%.

I understand, as the Government will argue, that because of their isolated working conditions this group of workers was vulnerable to, and suffered, abuse before the change in visa rules. But the research by Kalayaan, as others have said, has shown that abuse and exploitation has increased as a result of the new visa rules, figures that the Minister in the other place made clear are not disputed by the Government. This visa change has created the perfect storm, with work carried out in isolated conditions, employers having excessive power afforded to them and a legal system that offers absolutely no protection. It is therefore unsurprising that the abuse has increased.

The Minister will no doubt talk about having stronger pre-entry checks, a stronger written contract with explicit terms and conditions and more information given to overseas workers on their rights but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the effectiveness of those provisions has yet to be proven in practice. Also, these actions are not mutually exclusive to any other action; it is not a choice between stronger support mechanisms or a change in the visa rules—we should be doing both.

The amendment has a lot of support inside and outside this Chamber. Three parliamentary reviews have supported a change to the visa situation for overseas domestic workers. I hope that the Government can support it too, and include this amendment, or a version of it, in the Modern Slavery Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it happens here—it happens even in Scotland, as we have heard, that most civilised country.

A number of noble Lords have used words such as “unimaginable” but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I can only too well imagine the card—and I share her concerns about the card itself—being slipped into the passport as it is handed over. Of course, the passport is then very often taken by the employer.

I do not want to repeat the very powerful speeches made by so many noble Lords. I was grateful to hear from a number of people, including, most strongly and emphatically, from the three workers themselves to whom the noble Baroness referred, and at the meeting that she organised with Virginia Mantouvalou, who has written a report. Clearly, it is far too long to read here, but one thing particularly struck me. She gives the history of the overseas domestic worker visa and the diplomatic visa. When the concession was originally introduced, it was from concern to enable workers who had been with a family overseas to come here. The comment was made that it was for “a humanitarian reason”—to look after the domestic workers—and look where we have got to.

At that meeting, Kate Roberts from Kalayaan explained how her organisation could no longer help workers who managed to find their way to it, which must be a tiny percentage, because the organisation has to explain the problem with the Immigration Rules. Indeed, it often cannot help because of threats from employers to workers about criminalisation.

A number of noble Lords have also said that we must remember the realities. Measures such as dealing more effectively at the port of entry are important, but they are not enough. One thing that occurs to me on that is that, at the border on exit, when there is suspicion that a girl is being taken abroad for a forced marriage—the border officials are trained to recognise this—there are arrangements whereby they can be taken aside to be interviewed. The noble Baroness is right to point to that. I do not see why it should not happen in the other direction. We need to think about the realities. What people seem to be able to do to get around formal systems is almost beyond our imagining, and it is the realities that we need to fix on.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

In Schedule 3 there are very serious, violent crimes listed and it is understandable why they have been included. However, there are over 130 different offences to which the non-prosecution defence will not apply and along with the very serious—murder and rape—there are offences relating to immigration, criminal damage and theft. Schedule 3 has ramifications for victims, so the offences listed, and the existence of such a schedule, should not become law without a debate in this House. We should probe a little deeper and consider five issues with the Schedule.

First, does such a list help the trafficker? Evil minds work in evil ways. To a trafficker, Schedule 3 could be an escape strategy. It has been described, by Parosha Chandran, an award-winning human rights barrister, as a traffickers’ charter. It is a list of crimes that traffickers know the state will prosecute for—they just need to find victims to do them—and traffickers will make sure that victims know that the state will prosecute for those crimes. Will the Schedule therefore have the unintentional effect of dangerously exacerbating the vulnerabilities of those who are already enslaved or trafficked and lead them to become involved in more serious crimes?

Secondly, does such a list lead police and prosecutors to stop looking for the signs of slavery and trafficking for these offences? Despite clearly listing the offences most frequently committed by enslaved and trafficked adults and children, the guidance we already have has not been effective in stopping victims being prosecuted and convicted for these offences. There are a number of examples where no police investigation into the victim’s situation, as a trafficked or enslaved person, has taken place and the victim has been wrongly imprisoned. Even when crimes are flagged as frequent crimes of trafficked victims in the CPS guidance, there is still little or no investigation. So a list of crimes specifically for non-prosecution may never lead to an investigation into the trafficked or exploited situation of the victim. This means that, once again, the traffickers get clean away.

Thirdly, does such a list contain the right offences? As pointed out in the other place, the impact assessment of this Bill states that Schedule 3 is drawn from Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act. However, immigration offences are in Schedule 3 but not in Schedule 15. As Michael Connarty MP rightly asked, how can we deny a trafficked victim the right to a statutory defence because they resist arrest? We know that children especially—and adults too—are suspicious of authority, because the traffickers have made them that way; they are scared and do not understand the language. Should this offence be included?

Fourthly, the crime that a victim is typically forced to commit today is not what they may be forced to commit tomorrow. Even though there is provision in the Bill for Schedule 3 to be reviewed, this takes time. In this time, victims are being criminalised by our system and the traffickers are making their escape.

Finally, the facts are established for each individual case, no matter what the crime. If a crime is committed, whether or not it is listed in Schedule 3, the police will investigate and the CPS will still consider whether the evidential threshold has been met, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and whether the non-prosecution defence applies. If the police and CPS can satisfy themselves that they can secure a conviction by being able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, they will proceed to prosecute—whether the offence is listed on Schedule 3 is immaterial, as the child or adult will be prosecuted. If the offence is serious it would, inevitably, be in the public interest to prosecute. Why is the list of exceptions necessary? In Committee in the other place, Peter Carter QC, said:

“I think legislating by list of exceptions is a recipe for disaster and confusion”.—[Official Report, Commons, Modern Slavery Bill Committee, 21/7/14; col. 36.]

I agree. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I support the points made by the noble Baroness, who has pointed to unintended consequences, among other matters. This is a list of the most serious offences and there has not been much consideration of offences which may very often be committed in the context of trafficking. The noble Baroness rightly referred to the violation of immigration law. We heard this afternoon of an instance of false information relating to travel documents. To my mind—I am completely unbiased of course—this sort of thing is entirely understandable.

Looking at the list, I was interested in the inclusion of Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill, when we know that some victims of trafficking and slavery are forced into positions where they act on behalf of their own slave-masters in carrying out some of the acts which are comprised in those offences. But that is no different in substance from the concerns that the noble Baroness has raised about other matters. I share that concern. I do not think that by including the list we are doing anything other than creating difficulties for ourselves in applying the non-prosecution provision.